Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd: Discovery & Waiver of Privilege

In a civil dispute between Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore (Plaintiff) and Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (Defendant), the High Court of Singapore, on 2 May 2002, addressed appeals from both parties regarding the discovery of documents. The plaintiff's appeal concerned the refusal to order the defendant to disclose advice and correspondence between the defendant and its solicitors. The defendant's appeal concerned the refusal to order disclosure by the plaintiff of various drafts and attachments referred to in electronic mail printouts. The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and allowed the defendant's appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; defendant's appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed discovery of documents and waiver of privilege in a dispute between Info-Communications and Singapore Telecommunications.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Info-Communications Development Authority of SingaporePlaintiff, RespondentStatutory BoardAppeal DismissedLost
Singapore Telecommunications LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Cavinder BullDrew & Napier LLC
Prakash PillaiAllen & Gledhill
Muthu ArusuAllen & Gledhill

4. Facts

  1. In 1992, TAS granted the defendant a licence to provide telecommunication services until 2017.
  2. The licence conferred a monopoly in respect of various services until 2007.
  3. In May 1996, TAS sought to modify one of the conditions of the licence.
  4. TAS offered $1.5bn as compensation for the further amendment.
  5. The defendant accepted TAS’s offer of $1.5bn on 30 May 1996.
  6. In 2000, the plaintiff decided to shorten the monopoly period of the defendant from 2002 to 2000.
  7. The Inland Revenue Department indicated that no tax was payable by the defendant on the $1.5bn.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd, Suit 934/2001, RA 84/2002, 86/2002, [2002] SGHC 95

6. Timeline

DateEvent
TAS granted the defendant a licence to provide telecommunication services in Singapore until 2017.
Licence agreement amended, allowing TAS to grant other operators a licence to provide telecommunication services from 1 April 2002.
TAS sought to modify one of the conditions of the licence.
TAS gave the defendant formal notice with an offer of $1.5bn as compensation.
Defendant accepted TAS’s offer of $1.5bn.
TAS acknowledged that the $1.5bn 'will be in full and final payment'.
Full sum of $1.5bn was paid to the defendant.
Plaintiff succeeded TAS, taking over its assets, rights, privileges, liabilities, and obligations.
Plaintiff decided to shorten the monopoly period of the defendant from 2002 to 2000.
Inland Revenue Department indicated that no tax was payable by the defendant on the $859m it received from the plaintiff.
Plaintiff wrote to the defendant asking for a refund of $388m.
High Court decision.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Disclosure of Documents
    • Outcome: The court addressed the principles for ordering further discovery and the relevance of documents referred to in electronic mail printouts.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Relevance of documents
      • Waiver of privilege
  2. Waiver of Privilege
    • Outcome: The court considered whether the disclosure of a solicitor's letter of advice constitutes a waiver of privilege for the letter of instruction as well.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Disclosure of solicitor's letter of advice
      • Disclosure of letter of instruction

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Refund of $388m

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Telecommunications

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
George Doland v Blackburn Robson Coates & Co (a firm)Court not specified in documentYes[1972] 3 All ER 959England and WalesCited regarding waiver of privilege when a solicitor testifies as a witness for his client and refers to specific topics during testimony.
George Doland v Blackburn Robson Coates & Co (a firm)Court not specified in documentYes[1972] 1 WLR 1338England and WalesCited regarding waiver of privilege when a solicitor testifies as a witness for his client and refers to specific topics during testimony.
Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance CoCourt not specified in documentYes[1981] 2 All ER 485England and WalesCited regarding waiver of privilege in respect of an entire document when a part of it is produced and read in court.
Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance CoCourt not specified in documentYes[1981] 1 WLR 529England and WalesCited regarding waiver of privilege in respect of an entire document when a part of it is produced and read in court.
Ormerod Grierson & Co v St George`s IronworksCourt not specified in documentYes[1906] 95 LT 694England and WalesCited to support the view that if a letter refers to another document, that other document is prima facie relevant.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence ActSingapore
Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Disclosure
  • Discovery
  • Privilege
  • Waiver
  • Ancillary and incidental
  • Telecommunication services
  • Monopoly rights
  • Tax component

15.2 Keywords

  • Discovery
  • Disclosure
  • Privilege
  • Waiver
  • Singapore Telecommunications
  • Info-Communications Development Authority

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice75
Evidence50
Contract Law25

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Evidence
  • Telecommunications Law