Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P: Discovery, Production of Documents & Inspection
In Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and Newfirst Limited, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal regarding the production and inspection of documents, including a hard drive from a Dell laptop, in a case involving claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of duty of care, and breach of contract. Alliance Management SA claimed damages from Pendleton Lane P and Newfirst Limited for allegedly being induced into investing in Orient Networks Holdings Ltd based on false information. The court dismissed the appeal for the most part, ordering the defendants to pay costs, and addressed issues related to the discovery process and the court's discretion to order production of documents.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed for the most part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed the production and inspection of documents, including a hard drive, in a case involving fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance Management SA | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed for the most part | Partial | Cavinder Bull, Tan Hee Joek, Woo Shu Yan |
| Pendleton Lane P | Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed for the most part | Lost | Chandra Mohan, Celia Sia, Alvin Chang |
| Newfirst Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed for the most part | Lost | Chandra Mohan, Celia Sia, Alvin Chang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Cavinder Bull | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Tan Hee Joek | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Woo Shu Yan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Chandra Mohan | Rajah & Tann |
| Celia Sia | Rajah & Tann |
| Alvin Chang | M & A Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff is a shareholder of Orient Networks Holdings Ltd (ONH).
- Orient Telecommunications Networks Pte Ltd (OTN) is the wholly owned subsidiary of ONH.
- ONH is in liquidation while OTN is under judicial management.
- Lane P Pendleton (LPP) was the Co-Chairman and Executive Director of ONH.
- Newfirst was the investment vehicle used by LPP to hold shares in ONH.
- Plaintiff claims damages from the defendants in respect of three distinct causes of action: fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of duty of care and breach of contract.
- LPP had exclusive use of a Dell laptop since 2001 until it was returned to the Judicial Manager.
- The original hard drive of the Dell laptop was switched with another hard drive before it was returned to the Judicial Manager.
5. Formal Citations
- Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and Another and Another Suit, Suit 511/2005, 522/2005, RA 335/2006, 336/2006, [2007] SGHC 133
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lane P Pendleton assigned Dell laptop for his use. | |
| Plaintiff provided guarantees in favor of the bankers of ONH and OTN. | |
| Agreement to personally indemnify the plaintiff against any loss arising from the provision of an amended banker’s guarantee. | |
| Suit 511/2005 and 522/2005 filed. | |
| Order of Court dated for Judicial Manager to give discovery of documents. | |
| Order of Court dated for Judicial Manager to give discovery of documents. | |
| Defendants provided discovery by filing and serving a List of Documents. | |
| Lane P Pendleton interviewed by the Liquidators of ONH. | |
| Plaintiff sought specific discovery pursuant to O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court. | |
| AR granted an order to cross-examine LPP and his secretary, Ms Joseph. | |
| Plaintiff made an oral application for an order that the Hard Disk be returned to the Judicial Manager. | |
| Assistant Registrar ordered the first defendant to produce and return the original hard drive and give discovery. | |
| Defendants amended both the LOD and SLOD. | |
| Defendants filed and served a second Supplementary List of Documents. | |
| A third and fourth Supplementary List of Documents were filed. | |
| A further list reducing the number of documents from the US Copy to 7462 has since been filed. | |
| Appeal dismissed for the most part. |
7. Legal Issues
- Production of Documents
- Outcome: The court upheld the order for production of the hard disk and certain documents, subject to safeguards.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Court's discretion to order production for purposes of inspection
- Access to material stored on computer database
- Safeguards to prevent trawling
- Power to Order Non-Party to Produce Documents
- Outcome: The court considered its power to order a non-party (Judicial Manager) to produce documents.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 9) | Court not specified | Yes | [1991] 1 WLR 652 | England and Wales | Concluded that material on a computer database constituted a “document” within O 24. |
| Megastar Entertainment Pte Ltd v Odex Pte Ltd | Court not specified | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 91 | Singapore | Reviewed the definition of “document” in the Evidence Act and other statutes and concluded that the Evidence Act definition of the word “document” was broad enough to encompass information recorded in an electronic medium or recording device such as a hard disk drive installed in a desktop computer or server computer. |
| Dolling-Baker v Merrett and others | Court not specified | Yes | [1991] 2 All ER 890 | England and Wales | The burden of satisfying the court that production and inspection of documents is necessary is on the plaintiff as the party applying for the order. |
| SMS Pte Ltd v Power & Energy Pte Ltd | Court not specified | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 767 | Singapore | Distinguished on the basis that a formal application made by way of summons-in-chambers with supporting affidavit was necessary. |
| Koh Toi Choi v Lim Geok Hong and Another | Court not specified | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR 340 | Singapore | Cited regarding striking out an action on the day of trial. |
| Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd and Others v Overseas Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and Another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] SGCA 18 | Singapore | The real consideration, was whether such an oral application would cause any prejudice to either party. |
| Playboy Enterprises Inc v Terri Welles | Court not specified | Yes | 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (1999) | United States | So long as the application for specific discovery and inspection was for documents which might be on the hard drive of a computer, it was not necessary to mention the hard drive itself in the application. |
| Wellmix Organic (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Court not specified | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR 117 | Singapore | Fallback argument is valid if the existing rules of court do not cover the situation at hand. |
| UMCI v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court not specified | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 95 | Singapore | Having reached the conclusion that the court has power under O 24 r 12, it was not necessary to discuss the court’s inherent jurisdiction to make directions to give effect to orders of court or those that are reasonably necessary for justice to be done or prevent abuse of process. |
| Rafidain Bank v Agom Universal Sugar Trading Co Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] 3 All ER 860 | England and Wales | The court is not deterred from granting the order otherwise appropriate simply because the order would likely be disobeyed for one reason or another. |
| Sony Music Entertainment (Australia) Ltd and Others v University of Tasmania and Others | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [2003] FCA 532 | Australia | Included safeguards to para 5 of the November Order. |
| Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed Pty Ltd v Amcor Ltd | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | (2006) FCA 1802 | Australia | Helpfully explained what the term “meta-data” meant. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 24 r 12(1) Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 24 rr 6(2), 11(2) Rules of Court | Singapore |
| s 3(1) of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| Order 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 24 r 13 | Singapore |
| Order 20 r 8 of the ROC | Singapore |
| Order 24 r 9 | Singapore |
| Order 24 r 11(2) | Singapore |
| s 35(1) (a) of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 35(1)(c) of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| O 27 r 4 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Discovery
- Production of Documents
- Inspection
- Hard Disk
- Judicial Manager
- Rules of Court
- Electronic Documents
- Possession
- Custody
- Power
15.2 Keywords
- Discovery
- Production of Documents
- Inspection
- Hard Disk
- Civil Procedure
- Singapore High Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Electronic Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Production of Documents
- Inspection