Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG v Go Dante Yap: Civil Procedure & Admissibility of Documents
In Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG v Go Dante Yap, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed an application to strike out the appellant's notice of appeal concerning an interlocutory order made by the trial judge regarding the admissibility of certain documents under Order 27 r 4(1) of the Rules of Court. The respondent, Go Dante Yap, had sought to amend his statement of claim in Suit No 424 of 2003 to dispute the authenticity of documents presented by the appellant, Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG. The Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, struck out the appeal and remitted the issue back to the trial judge for reconsideration, citing the need for oral evidence to determine potential prejudice to the appellant.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal struck out and issue remitted to the trial judge for further consideration.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal struck out an appeal regarding the admissibility of documents in a civil procedure case, remitting the issue to the trial judge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Struck Out | Dismissed | Christopher Anand Daniel, Tan Xeauwei, Ramesh Selvaraj |
| Go Dante Yap | Respondent | Individual | Application to Strike Out Appeal Granted | Won | Eddee Ng, Lim Hui Li Debby |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Anand Daniel | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Tan Xeauwei | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Ramesh Selvaraj | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Eddee Ng | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
| Lim Hui Li Debby | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
4. Facts
- The respondent applied to amend his statement of claim to dispute the authenticity of certain documents.
- The appellant argued that the respondent was deemed to have admitted the authenticity of the documents due to non-compliance with O 27 r 4 of the ROC.
- The trial judge opined that it might not even be necessary to amend the statement of claim to dispute the authenticity of the relevant documents.
- The trial judge held that the plaintiff is not deemed to have admitted the documents for the purposes of O 27 r 4(1).
- The appellant appealed against the trial judge's decision.
- The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal and remitted the issue back to the trial judge for reconsideration.
5. Formal Citations
- Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG v Go Dante Yap, CA 72/2007, SUM 2765/2007, [2007] SGCA 44
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 424 of 2003 filed | |
| Issue of authenticity of disputed documents raised before the trial judge | |
| Summons heard in chambers before the trial judge | |
| Trial judge opined that it might not even be necessary to amend the statement of claim to dispute the authenticity of the relevant documents | |
| Respondent withdrew his application for leave to amend | |
| Counsel for the appellant asked the trial judge in open court during the trial proceedings to certify that no further arguments were required for the order made during the hearing of the Summons | |
| Appellant filed a notice of appeal by way of Civil Appeal No 72 of 2007 | |
| Court of Appeal struck out the appeal and remitted the issue back to the trial judge |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Documents
- Outcome: The court remitted the issue to the trial judge to review the exercise of his discretion in relation to Order 27 r 4(1) of the Rules of Court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to object to documents in litigant's bundle of documents
- Deemed admission
- Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The court struck out the appeal and remitted the issue back to the Judge for further consideration.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Consideration of issue without hearing oral evidence
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Appeals
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1903] 1 KB 547 | England and Wales | Approved by this court in Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man for the definition of interlocutory orders. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Court of Appeal | No | [2006] 2 SLR 525 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of interlocutory orders. |
| Onslow v Commissioners of Inland Revenue | Court of Appeal | No | (1890) 25 QBD 465 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of the word “order”. |
| E McGarry (Electrical) Ltd v Burroughs Machines Ltd | Court of Appeal | No | E McGarry (Electrical) Ltd v Burroughs Machines Ltd (Court of Appeal, 14 April 1986) | England and Wales | Expressed its disapproval of appeals against interlocutory orders made in the course of the trial. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 27 r 4(1) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 29A(1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Admissibility of documents
- Authenticity of documents
- Interlocutory order
- Deemed admission
- Prejudice
- Rules of Court
- Order
- Statement of claim
15.2 Keywords
- Civil Procedure
- Admissibility
- Documents
- Appeal
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law