Tentat Singapore v Multiple Granite: Legal Advice Privilege & Waiver in Loan Dispute
In Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd v Multiple Granite Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed whether an email containing legal advice was privileged and whether that privilege had been waived. Tentat Singapore sought a declaration that an email from its solicitors, Rajah & Tann, was legally privileged and should not be used by Multiple Granite in a related suit. The court, presided over by Justice Kan Ting Chiu, found that the email was indeed privileged, had been sent to Tan Hong Huat under a duty of confidentiality, and that no waiver of privilege had occurred. Consequently, the court granted Tentat Singapore's application, preventing Multiple Granite and Tan Hong Huat from using the email as evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's application granted; the defendants are not allowed to tender the email or secondary evidence of it in the suit.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case regarding legal advice privilege over an email discussing a loan agreement and whether that privilege was waived.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Granted | Won | Tan Tian Luh |
| Multiple Granite Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Denied | Lost | Kelvin Tan |
| Tan Hong Huat | Defendant | Individual | Application Denied | Lost | Kelvin Tan |
| Tentat Holdings Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kan Ting Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Tian Luh | Chancery Law Corporation |
| Kelvin Tan | Gabriel Law Corporation |
| Sim Chee Siang | Rajah & Tann |
4. Facts
- Tentat Holdings claimed Multiple Granite owed it $755,000 for two loans.
- Multiple Granite claimed the sum was a shareholders’ loan from Tentat Singapore.
- Tan Hong Huat referred to an email from Rajah & Tann in an affidavit.
- The email referred to preparing a loan agreement for Tentat Singapore to Multiple Granite.
- The email was forwarded to Tan Hong Huat by Karen Lim, Lee Teng Hong's secretary.
- Lee Teng Hong and Tan Hong Huat gave conflicting accounts of why the email was sent to Tan Hong Huat.
- Tentat Singapore intervened, seeking a declaration that the email was legally privileged.
5. Formal Citations
- Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd v Multiple Granite Pte Ltd and Others, OS 1414/2007, [2008] SGHC 136
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rajah & Tann sent an email to Karen Lim regarding a loan agreement for Tentat Singapore to Multiple Granite. | |
| Rajah & Tann sent an email to Karen Lim enclosing a draft shareholders’ agreement of Multiple Granite. | |
| Karen Lim forwarded emails from Rajah & Tann to Tan Hong Huat. | |
| Tan Hong Huat filed an affidavit in Suit 215/2007 referring to the email of 13 December 2005. | |
| Lee Teng Hong filed an affidavit. | |
| Lee Teng Hong filed an affidavit in the suit. | |
| Tan Hong Huat filed an affidavit. | |
| Tan Hong Huat filed a subsequent affidavit. | |
| Lee Teng Hong affirmed that the email of 13 December was sent to Tan Hong Huat by mistake. | |
| First and Second Defendants’ Written Submissions. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Legal Advice Privilege
- Outcome: The court found that the email was covered by legal advice privilege and was sent under a duty of confidentiality.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether an email from solicitors to a client is a privileged communication
- Whether the email was sent under a duty of confidentiality
- Waiver of Privilege
- Outcome: The court found that there was no waiver of the legal advice privilege.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Express waiver
- Implied waiver
- Cherrypicking
- Secondary Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the email has not been used in evidence and the defendants should not be allowed to tender the email or secondary evidence of it in the suit.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the email is legally privileged communication
- Restraint from further use of the email
- Striking out references to the email
- Delivery up or destruction of copies of the email
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration regarding legal privilege
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Great Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd v Home Insurance Co | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] 1 WLR 529 | England and Wales | Cited to explain the doctrine of fairness in relation to waiver of privilege, specifically the concept of 'cherrypicking' parts of documents. |
| Calcraft v Guest | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1898] 1 QB 759 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to the use of secondary evidence of privileged documents, but its rationale and application were questioned. |
| Lord Ashburton v Pape | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1913] 2 Ch 469 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to the use of secondary evidence of privileged documents and the right to object to the use of such documents. |
| Webster v James Chapman & Co (a firm) and others | Unknown | Yes | [1989] 3 All ER 939 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to the principles of jurisprudence regarding privileged and confidential documents. |
| Goddard and another v Nationwide Building Society | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] 1 QB 670 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that a litigant may use copies of privileged documents as secondary evidence if they have not yet been used, but the right to use the copies is liable to be defeated by timely objection. |
| R v Uljee | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [1982] 1 NZLR 561 | New Zealand | Cited to show that some judges do not attempt to reconcile the rules in Calcraft and Ashburton. |
| English & American Insurance Co Ltd v Herbert Smith | Unknown | Yes | [1988] FSR 232 | England and Wales | Acknowledged the difficulties in reconciling Calcraft and Ashburton. |
| Baker v Campbell | High Court of Australia | Yes | 49 ALR 385 | Australia | Cited to show that Brennan J did not endorse Calcraft v Guest. |
| Lloyd v Mostyn | Unknown | Yes | 10 M &W 478 | England and Wales | Cited for the statement that where an attorney entrusted confidentially with a document communicates the contents of it, or suffers another to take a copy, surely the secondary evidence so obtained may be produced. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Legal advice privilege
- Waiver of privilege
- Duty of confidentiality
- Secondary evidence
- Shareholders’ loan
- Loan agreement
- Cherrypicking
15.2 Keywords
- Legal advice privilege
- Waiver
- Loan agreement
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Legal Advice Privilege
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Privileges
- Legal Advice Privilege