Credit Suisse v Lim Soon Fang Bryan: Examination of Witnesses in Foreign Jurisdiction

In Credit Suisse v Lim Soon Fang Bryan, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Bryan Lim Soon Fang to set aside an order for a letter of request to examine two witnesses in Taiwan. Credit Suisse sought to examine Richard Chen Jung-Yuan and Elen Chen Chuan-Hung, Taiwanese nationals, regarding claims against Lim related to unauthorized transactions in a joint account. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Assistant Registrar's decision, finding the examination necessary for the purposes of justice.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding examination of Taiwanese witnesses. The court affirmed the order for a letter of request to examine witnesses in Taiwan.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Credit SuissePlaintiffCorporationAppeal allowed.Won
Lim Soon Fang BryanDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal dismissed.Lost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ramesh SelvarajAllen & Gledhill
Muthu ArusuAllen & Gledhill
Kenneth Tan SCKenneth Tan Partnership
Bhaskaran SivasamyM & A Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Credit Suisse sued Lim Soon Fang Bryan to recover a settlement sum paid to CJY and his wife.
  2. CJY and his wife were customers of Credit Suisse and had a joint account with the bank.
  3. Lim Soon Fang Bryan was employed by Credit Suisse as a relationship manager and was in charge of the account.
  4. CJY, his wife, and CCH made claims against the bank in connection with the operation and management of the account by Lim.
  5. The bank conducted an internal investigation and settled with CJY and his wife for EUR 400,000.
  6. The bank applied for a letter of request to examine CJY and CCH in Taiwan, as they were unwilling to attend in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Credit Suisse v Lim Soon Fang Bryan, Suit 822/2005, RA 297/2006, [2007] SGHC 52

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Couple established a USD joint account with the bank.
Defendant resigned from the bank.
Bank settled with CJY and his wife and paid EUR 400,000.
Suit 822/2005 filed.
Bank applied for a letter of request to be issued to the Taiwanese judicial authorities.
Assistant Registrar made an order for a letter of request to issue from the High Court of Singapore.
Judge affirmed the Assistant Registrar’s decision.
Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Examination of Witnesses in Foreign Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that the order for examination of witnesses in Taiwan was necessary for the purposes of justice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Opportunity to cross-examine
      • Admissibility of depositions
  2. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found the objection to admissibility of the deposition to be premature.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Recovery of settlement sum
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of contract
  • Breach of fiduciary duties

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Napier v Anthony & CoN/AYes[1932] SSLR 82N/ACited regarding the court's disinclination to issue letters of request for examination of witnesses abroad where fraud is alleged and the claimant chose the forum.
Walt Disney Productions v H John Edwards Publishing Co Pty LtdN/AYes[1952] 69 WN 281N/ACited regarding the nature of evidence sought to be taken abroad being formal and not dependent on the credibility of witnesses.
In re Boyse; Crofton v CroftonN/AYes[1882] 20 Ch 760N/ACited for the proposition that no order would be made for evidence to be taken abroad if the procedure in the foreign country would not permit justice to be done in that it did not afford the opposing party an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the ordinary way.
H Stacey v Diamond Metal Products Co LtdN/AYes[1935] 4 MLJ 249N/ACited for the proposition that no order would be made for evidence to be taken abroad if the procedure in the foreign country would not permit justice to be done in that it did not afford the opposing party an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the ordinary way.
Hardie Rubber Company Pty Limited v The General Tire & Rubber CompanyN/AYes[1971-1973] 129 CLR 521N/ACited regarding the argument that it would be unjust to the appellant for the court to exercise its discretion to issue a letter of request as there was a limitation placed upon the right to cross-examine under Japanese procedure.
Williams v Mutual Life Associate of AustralasiaN/AYes[1904] 4 SR (NSW) 677N/ACited as a case where discretion was exercised and the order was made in instances where the non-compellability of the proposed witness outweighed the disadvantages attendant upon the taking of evidence abroad instead of viva voce examination before the trial judge deciding the substantive issues.
Willis v TrequairN/AYes[1906] 3 CLR 912N/ACited as a case where discretion was exercised and the order was made in instances where the non-compellability of the proposed witness outweighed the disadvantages attendant upon the taking of evidence abroad instead of viva voce examination before the trial judge deciding the substantive issues.
Copps v Time International of Canada LtdSupreme Court of OntarioYes(1964) 1 Ontario Reports 229CanadaCited for the proposition that where the conditions to be satisfied were met, namely, (a) the application was made in good faith, (b) the evidence of the witness would be material to the issue, and (c) there was good reason why the witness could not be examined within the jurisdiction, the order should be granted even though the opposite party might be prejudiced by being unable to cross-examine the witness in open court before the judge or jury.
Lawson v Vacuum Brake CoN/AYes(1884) 27 Ch 137N/ACited as a case where an order for the examination of a witness was refused on the ground that the witness appeared to be an accomplice in the fraud alleged by the plaintiff and the court was not satisfied that he could not be brought within the jurisdiction for the trial.
Fisher v CHTN/AYes[1965] 1 WLR 1093N/ACited to show that a deposition taken pursuant to an order of court does not automatically qualify it as evidence in the case.
Banwari Lal v The StateN/AYesAIR 1956 All. 385N/ACited to define the word 'right' used in the section means a right conferred by a statutory provision such as that contained in s 140 of the Evidence Act and not a right accruing from mere permission granted by the Court.
R v RamchandraN/AYes(1895) ILR 19 Bom 749N/ACited to show that the opportunity to administer cross-interrogatories under a commission was an “opportunity to cross-examine” within the meaning of the proviso to s 33 of the Indian Evidence Act which was pari materia to our s 33 of the Evidence Act.
Hong Kong Kam Lan Koon Ltd v Realray Investments LtdN/AYes[2004] 4 HKC 349Hong KongCited to show that there is plainly a two-stage process to the use of deposition evidence at the trial. The first stage of the process is to obtain an order under O 39 r 2 for the taking of the evidence, and the second stage comes about if, for example, the party who has obtained the deposition decides to make use of it in the absence of the witness at the trial.
Cazenove v VaughanN/AYes1 M.& S. 6N/ACited to show that an examination de bene esse of a witness by means of cross-interrogatories was considered as a form of cross-examination.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 39 rr 1, 2 Rules of Court
Order 39 r 3 Rules of Court
Order 38 r 1
Order 38 r 9

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 33 Evidence ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Letter of request
  • Examination of witnesses
  • Cross-examination
  • Depositions
  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Taiwanese judicial authorities
  • Cross-interrogatories

15.2 Keywords

  • examination of witnesses
  • letter of request
  • foreign jurisdiction
  • evidence
  • cross-examination
  • depositions

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Evidence Law80
Civil Practice75

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Evidence Law