Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co. Ltd v Win Win Nu: Arbitration Confidentiality and Document Disclosure

In Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co. Ltd v Win Win Nu, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of confidentiality of documents from arbitration proceedings used in court. The plaintiff, Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co. Ltd, objected to the defendants' disclosure of arbitration documents in a strike-out application. The court, presided over by Justice Kan Ting Chiu, held that prior leave of court is not required for disclosing arbitration documents if the disclosure is reasonably necessary, but affirmed the assistant registrar's order to strike out the disclosure due to changed circumstances, modifying the costs order. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed; assistant registrar's order affirmed with modification on costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The case concerns the confidentiality of arbitration documents disclosed in court. The court held that prior leave is not required for disclosure if reasonably necessary.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co. LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal dismissedLost
Win Win NuDefendantIndividualAppeal partially allowedPartial
Yaung Chi Oo Trading Pte LtdDefendantCorporationAppeal partially allowedPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Anjali IyerHaq & Selvam
Ow Kim KitHaq & Selvam
Mohan DasHaq & Selvam
Burton ChenTan Rajah & Cheah
Chelva R Rajah SCTan Rajah & Cheah
Christine LeeTan Rajah & Cheah
MK Eusuff AliTan Rajah & Cheah

4. Facts

  1. A joint venture between the first defendant and Myanmar Foodstuff Industries led to the establishment of the plaintiff company.
  2. Disagreements arose, leading to the winding up of the company.
  3. The second defendant commenced arbitration against the government of Myanmar for wrongful expropriation.
  4. Actions were filed against the first defendant in Myanmar by the liquidators and MFI.
  5. The present action was filed in Singapore in the name of the company.
  6. Defendants applied to strike out the action or stay it pending arbitration.
  7. The arbitration tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co. Ltd v Win Win Nu and Another, Suit 1357/2002, RA 115/2003, [2003] SGHC 124

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit filed in Singapore (Suit 1357/2002)
Defendants applied to strike out the action or stay pending arbitration (RA 115/2003)
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Confidentiality of Arbitration Documents
    • Outcome: The court held that prior leave is not required for disclosure if reasonably necessary, but the disclosure was ultimately deemed unnecessary due to changed circumstances.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Disclosure of arbitration documents in court
      • Reasonable necessity exception
    • Related Cases:
      • [1990] 1 WLR 1205
      • [1993] 2 Ll LR 243
      • [1999] 1 WLR 314
      • [1995] 128 ALR 391

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Striking out of action
  2. Stay of action

9. Cause of Actions

  • Abuse of Process
  • Breach of Duty of Confidentiality

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Dolling-Baker v MerrettN/AYes[1990] 1 WLR 1205N/ACited for the implied obligation of confidentiality in arbitration proceedings.
Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v MewN/AYes[1993] 2 Ll LR 243N/ACited regarding the exception to the duty of confidence when disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect legal rights against a third party.
Ali Shipping Corporation v Shipyard TrogirCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 WLR 314N/ACited for the broader stance on the duty of confidentiality and permissible disclosures in arbitration.
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v PlowmanHigh Court of AustraliaYes[1995] 128 ALR 391AustraliaCited as an example of a jurisdiction that does not find an implied duty of confidentiality in arbitration.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration
  • Confidentiality
  • Reasonable necessity
  • Disclosure
  • Implied obligation
  • Leave of court
  • Vexatious
  • Oppressive
  • Abuse of process

15.2 Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Confidentiality
  • Disclosure
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration90
Abuse of Process40
Commercial Disputes30
Jurisdiction20
Civil Procedure20
Crossclaims10
Affidavits10

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Civil Procedure
  • Confidentiality