UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine: Discovery of Documents & Handwriting Samples in Insurance Claim

UMCI Ltd sued Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd for recovery of US$1,375,000 under a marine open policy, alleging damage to cargo during transit. Tokio Marine, the defendant, challenged the authenticity of cargo checklists submitted by UMCI, the plaintiff. Tokio Marine applied for a court order compelling Morrison Express Logistics Pte Ltd and Lim Beng Wee, non-parties to the action, to provide documentary and handwriting samples for expert analysis. The High Court of Singapore allowed the application for discovery of documents but dismissed the application for handwriting samples.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed in part. The defendant's application for discovery of documents against non-parties is granted. The application for handwriting samples is dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

UMCI Ltd sues Tokio Marine for insurance claim. Tokio Marine seeks discovery of documents and handwriting samples from non-parties. Court allows document discovery but denies handwriting samples.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UMCI LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication allowed in partPartialJasmine Chin
Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte LtdDefendant, ApplicantCorporationApplication allowed in partPartialAnna Quah I-Lin
Morrison Express Logistics Pte LtdOtherCorporationNeutralNeutralWendy Tan
Lim Beng WeeOtherIndividualNeutralNeutralWendy Tan

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jasmine ChinRajah & Tann
Anna Quah I-LinAng & Partners
Wendy TanHaq & Selvam

4. Facts

  1. UMCI Ltd made an insurance claim for damaged semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
  2. Tokio Marine was the insurer under a marine open policy.
  3. The cargo was allegedly damaged in transit from Texas to Singapore.
  4. UMCI submitted a cargo checklist indicating no damage upon shipment.
  5. An original checklist produced later suggested damage at the origin.
  6. The defendant questioned the authenticity of the cargo checklists.
  7. Morrison Express Logistics and Mr. Lim prepared the cargo checklist.

5. Formal Citations

  1. UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Others, Suit 409/2005, SUM 1753/2006, [2006] SGHC 142

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff made a declaration in respect of semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
Defendant was informed of a claim under the policy.
Inspection of the original cargo checklist took place at the Plaintiff’s premises.
Defendant applied for specific discovery and interrogatories.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Discovery of Documents Against Non-Parties
    • Outcome: The court held that it had the power to order discovery of documents against non-parties under O 24 r 6 of the Rules of Court.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Relevance of documents
      • Necessity of discovery
  2. Compelling Non-Parties to Provide Handwriting Samples
    • Outcome: The court held that it did not have the power to compel non-parties to provide handwriting samples under s 75 of the Evidence Act or its inherent jurisdiction.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Court's inherent jurisdiction
      • Interpretation of s 75 Evidence Act
  3. Preservation of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court held that the orders sought in relation to the documentary samples were for delivery and not for preservation and that there was nothing yet to preserve in relation to the handwriting samples.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Fraudulent Claim

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Insurance Litigation

11. Industries

  • Insurance
  • Logistics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Bocotra Construction Pte Ltd v AGCourt of AppealYes[1995] 2 SLR 523SingaporeCited to support the principle that O 29 r 2(1) applies only to physical items and not choses in action.
Tudor Accumulator Company Ltd v China Mutual Steam Navigation Company LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1930] WN 200England and WalesCited as authority for the proposition that inspection under the rule is limited to physical things.
Ash v Buxted Poultry LtdEnglish High CourtYesThe Times (29 November 1989)England and WalesCited for the proposition that O 29 r 2 is limited to property and does not extend to a method of manufacturing.
In re Saxton, decdEnglish High CourtYes[1962] 1 WLR 859England and WalesCited by the defendant, but distinguished by the court because the language of the rule in question was different and the order was sought by one party against another.
Douihech v FindlayEnglish High CourtYes[1990] 1 WLR 269England and WalesCited to support the principle that inspection would not be permitted as between non-parties.
Chua Kim Eng Carol v The Great Eastern Life Assurance Co LtdSingapore High CourtYes[1998] SGHC 403SingaporeCited by the non-parties for the proposition that s 75 of the Evidence Act is a method of last resort.
Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2002] 3 SLR 345SingaporeCited to affirm the importance of considering the relevance of documents sought in discovery by reference to the pleaded issues.
Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR 39SingaporeCited by the non-parties to contend that there was no necessity to make the orders sought since Mr Lim would be giving evidence as a witness.
Thorpe v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester PoliceEnglish Court of AppealYes[1989] 1 WLR 665England and WalesCited to support the principle that discovery should not be given of every document which might open up a line of inquiry for cross-examination of the litigant solely as to credit.
O’Sullivan v Herdmans LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] 1 WLR 1047United KingdomCited to support the argument that it is in the interests of justice that documents of central importance should be available to both parties before the trial starts.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu ManSingapore High CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR 117SingaporeCited to review the ambit of the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Mitsui & Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum UK LtdEnglish High CourtYes[2005] 3 All ER 511England and WalesCited to support the argument that the exercise of the jurisdiction of the court against third parties who are mere witnesses innocent of any participation in the wrongdoing being investigated is a remedy of last resort.
Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise CommissionersHouse of LordsYes[1974] AC 133United KingdomCited in the context of an application for discovery specifically resting on the jurisdiction articulated by the House of Lords.
Grant v Southwestern and County Properties LtdEnglish High CourtYes[1975] Ch 185England and WalesCited to support the argument that inspection is not limited to ocular inspection and equipment may be used to “inspect” documents.
Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 9)English High CourtYes[1991] 1 WLR 652England and WalesCited in the context of extending an order for discovery to cover access to the database of a computer’s online system.
O’Sullivan v Herdmans LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] 1 WLR 1047United KingdomCited to support the argument that it is in the interests of justice that documents of central importance should be available to both parties before the trial starts.
S v SHouse of LordsYes[1972] AC 24United KingdomCited for the broad interests of justice.
Scott v Mercantile Accident Insurance CompanyNot AvailableYes(1892) 8 TLR 320Not AvailableCited to emphasize the need to establish a sufficiently real connection between the issues in the action and the property that is the subject of the application.
Shaw v SmithCourt of AppealYes(1886) 18 QBD 193England and WalesCited to support the principle that inspection would not be permitted as between non-parties.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Order 24 rule 6 Rules of CourtSingapore
Section 75 Evidence ActSingapore
First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Marine Open Policy
  • Cargo Checklist
  • Handwriting Samples
  • Discovery of Documents
  • Authenticity of Documents
  • Inherent Jurisdiction
  • Preservation of Evidence
  • Non-Party Discovery

15.2 Keywords

  • discovery
  • documents
  • handwriting
  • insurance
  • claim
  • non-party
  • evidence
  • civil procedure

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Insurance Law
  • Evidence Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Discovery of Documents
  • Insurance Law