Lian Teck Construction v Woh Hup: Pre-Action Discovery & Arbitration Clause Scope
Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd (“Lian Teck”), the plaintiff, applied to the High Court of Singapore for pre-action discovery against Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd, Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co Ltd, and NCC International Aktiebolag (“Woh Hup”), the defendants, related to a sub-contract for earthworks. Lian Teck sought documents pertaining to the main contract between Woh Hup and the Land Transport Authority (LTA). The application was partially granted by an assistant registrar, and Woh Hup appealed. Lai Siu Chiu J dismissed the appeal, affirming the order for discovery for use in potential court proceedings, contingent on Lian Teck pursuing its claim for wrongful termination of the sub-contract.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lian Teck Construction sought pre-action discovery from Woh Hup. The court addressed the scope of the arbitration clause and discovery relevance.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Granted in Part | Partial | Ian de Vaz |
| Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Lawrence Teh, Loh Jen Wei |
| Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Lawrence Teh, Loh Jen Wei |
| NCC International Aktiebolag | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Lawrence Teh, Loh Jen Wei |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ian de Vaz | Wong Partnership |
| Lawrence Teh | Rodyk and Davidson |
| Loh Jen Wei | Rodyk and Davidson |
4. Facts
- Lian Teck was the earthwork sub-contractor for Woh Hup.
- The sub-contract was partially terminated by Woh Hup in February 2004.
- Lian Teck elected to treat the termination as a repudiation of the sub-contract.
- Lian Teck intended to institute legal proceedings against Woh Hup for approximately $2.5m.
- Lian Teck sought pre-action discovery of documents related to the main contract between Woh Hup and the LTA.
- The assistant registrar granted an order for discovery of certain documents.
- Woh Hup appealed against the decision of the assistant registrar.
5. Formal Citations
- Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd v Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd and Others, OS 855/2004, RA 241/2004, [2004] SGHC 260
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Main contract made between Land Transport Authority and the defendants. | |
| Conditions of Sub-contract dated. | |
| Letter of award appointing the plaintiff as earthwork sub-contractor. | |
| Defendants partially terminated the sub-contract. | |
| Plaintiff elected to treat the partial termination as a repudiation of the sub-contract. | |
| Application heard by an assistant registrar who granted an order in terms of items (a) to (d). | |
| Appeal dismissed by Lai Siu Chiu J. |
7. Legal Issues
- Scope of Arbitration Clause
- Outcome: The court did not definitively rule on the scope of the arbitration clause but indicated that it may not cover the termination of the sub-contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicability of arbitration clause to all claims
- Interpretation of arbitration clause
- Pre-Action Discovery
- Outcome: The court affirmed the order for pre-action discovery, finding that the plaintiff had satisfied the requirements of O 24 r 6(3) of the Rules of Court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of documents
- Material facts pertaining to intended proceedings
8. Remedies Sought
- Discovery of Documents
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Wrongful Termination of Sub-Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
- Construction Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuah Kok Kim v Ernst & Young | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 169 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that ascertaining whether a cause of action exists is one of the key reasons for which pre-action discovery is sought and for the requirements of O 24 r 6(3). |
| Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 39 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of O 24 r 6(3) in relation to demonstrating that the documents are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise out of the claims likely to be made. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 69 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 24 r 6(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 24 r 6(3) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Paragraph 12 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Pre-action discovery
- Arbitration clause
- Sub-contract
- Main contract
- Wrongful termination
- Repudiation
- Material facts
- Relevance
- Originating summons
15.2 Keywords
- pre-action discovery
- arbitration
- construction
- wrongful termination
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration
- Construction Dispute
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration Law
- Construction Law
- Discovery