Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria: Discovery Application & Relevance to Pleadings
In Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by Dante Yap Go, the plaintiff, for discovery of documents from Bank Austria, the defendant, related to an investment in Rossiyskiy Kredit Notes. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Paul Tan, dismissed the application, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to the pleaded issues of unauthorized investment and negligence. The court emphasized the importance of a demonstrable nexus between the documents sought and the pleaded cases of the parties.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Dante Yap Go's discovery application against Bank Austria, ruling the requested documents irrelevant to the pleaded issues.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dante Yap Go | Plaintiff, Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Eddee Ng, See Chern Yang |
| Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Won | Tan Xeauwei, Sarala Subramaniam |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Paul Tan | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eddee Ng | Tan Kok Quan |
| See Chern Yang | Tan Kok Quan |
| Tan Xeauwei | Allen and Gledhill |
| Sarala Subramaniam | Allen and Gledhill |
4. Facts
- Dante Yap Go opened an account with Creditanstalt-Bankerverin (now Bank Austria) in 1997.
- An Account Opening and Custodian Agreement (AOCA) and a Discretionary Investment Management Agreement (DIMA) were signed on June 3, 1997.
- An Investment Authority Instruction (IAI) also dated June 3, 1997, restricted the discretionary mandate.
- The respondent invested in Rossiyskiy Kredit 10.25% Interest Notes on behalf of the applicant on September 25, 1997.
- The applicant alleged the investment violated express and implied terms of the agreements.
- The respondent claimed the applicant authorized the investment via telephone through Ms. Cheng.
- The applicant sought discovery of documents related to the respondent's ownership and trading of the Notes.
5. Formal Citations
- Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG, Suit 424/2003, SUM 1923/2007, [2007] SGHC 69
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Account Opening and Custodian Agreement signed | |
| Discretionary Investment Management Agreement signed | |
| Investment Authority Instruction signed | |
| Investment in Rossiyskiy Kredit 10.25% Interest Notes made | |
| Suit filed (Suit 424/2003) | |
| Expert evidence of Dr. Michael Potyka affirmed | |
| Applicant applied for liberty to set the matter down for trial | |
| Discovery application filed (SUM 1923/2007) | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Application dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Relevance of Documents in Discovery
- Outcome: The court held that the documents sought were not relevant to the pleaded issues and dismissed the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Direct Relevance
- Indirect Relevance
- Train of Inquiry
- Related Cases:
- [1989] 1 WLR 665
- [2002] 3 SLR 345
- [1992] 2 SLR 793
- [2006] 4 SLR 95
- [1992] 2 SLR 710
- (1882) 11 QBD 55
- [2004] 4 SLR 39
- Discovery for Discrediting Witnesses
- Outcome: The court found that the documents sought were not solely for the purpose of discrediting witnesses.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1989] 1 WLR 665
- [2002] 3 SLR 345
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the breach of contract claim itself, but considered its relevance to the discovery application.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of Express Terms
- Breach of Implied Terms
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the negligence claim itself, but considered its relevance to the discovery application.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Negligent Investment
- Negligent Advice
8. Remedies Sought
- Discovery of Documents
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thorpe v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1989] 1 WLR 665 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that discovery should not be ordered solely to discredit witnesses. |
| Tan Chin Seng & Ors v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that discovery must be relevant to pleaded issues and that seeking discovery for unpleaded allegations constitutes fishing. |
| Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd (in receivership) v Intraco Ltd and Others | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 793 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pleadings must contain all material facts relied upon for a claim or defense. |
| UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Others | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 95 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the relevance of documents sought in discovery must be considered by reference to the pleaded issues. |
| Wright Norman and Another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and Another Appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 710 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that discoverable documents must bear a relationship to the pleaded particulars and causes of action. |
| R.H.M. Foods Ltd and Another v Bovril Ltd | N/A | No | [1982] 1 WLR 661 | N/A | Cited for the principle that courts are often reluctant to order discovery prior to the commencement of any action and any pleadings. |
| Compagnie Financiere Et Commerciale Du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano | N/A | Yes | (1882) 11 QBD 55 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a document contains information which may enable the party requiring discovery to advance his case or to damage the case of his adversary, if it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of inquiry, which may have either of these two consequences. |
| Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 39 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that discovery must be necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings or for saving costs. |
| Board v Thomas Hedley & Co | N/A | No | [1951] 1 All ER 431 | N/A | Cited as an example of when background or circumstantial information can be discovered. |
| Prenn v Simmonds | N/A | No | [1971] 3 All ER 237 | N/A | Cited for the principle that evidence as to the factual background must be restricted to the circumstances known to the parties at or before the date of the contract. |
| O Co v M Co | N/A | No | [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 347 | N/A | Cited for the principle that discovery is not meant to require parties to turn out the contents of their filing systems on the off-chance that something might show up. |
| Banque Cantonale Vaudoise v Fujitrans (Singapore) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR 570 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that discovery is not meant to require parties to turn out the contents of their filing systems on the off-chance that something might show up. |
| Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore v TTJ Civil Engineering | N/A | No | [2003] 1 SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the party applying for discovery must not only mark out a specific and identifiable spot into which he wishes to drop a line, he must know that there is fish at that spot. |
| Austin v Mich. Chamber of Commerce | N/A | No | (1990) 494 US 652 | N/A | Cited for the principle of distinguishing between direct relevance and train of inquiry. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 24 r 1 |
| O 24 r 5 |
| O 24 r 5(3)(c) |
| O 24 r 6 |
| O 24 r 7 |
| O 18 r 7 |
| O 18 r 8(1) |
| O 18 r 15(1) |
| O 32 r 3 |
| O 62 r 8 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Discovery
- Relevance
- Pleadings
- Train of Inquiry
- Ulterior Motive
- Rossiyskiy Kredit Notes
- Authorisation
- Negligence
- Account Opening and Custodian Agreement
- Discretionary Investment Management Agreement
- Investment Authority Instruction
15.2 Keywords
- Discovery
- Relevance
- Pleadings
- Train of Inquiry
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Banking Law
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Contract Law
- Banking
- Investments
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Contract Law
- Banking Law