Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P: Striking Out Defence for Non-Compliance with Discovery Orders

In Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and Newfirst Limited, the High Court of Singapore struck out the defendants' defence due to their persistent failure to comply with court orders to produce a hard disk for discovery. The court found this non-compliance to be a contumelious disregard of the court's orders, warranting the striking out of the defence and entering interlocutory judgment for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Defence struck out and interlocutory judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Defence struck out due to deliberate non-compliance with court orders to produce a hard disk, frustrating discovery and inspection.

1.7 Decision Date

2 June 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Alliance Management SA	Plaintiff	Corporation	Interlocutory judgment for the plaintiff	Won	Cavinder Bull of Drew & Napier LLC Woo Shu Yan of Drew & Napier LLC Tan Hee Joek of Drew & Napier LLC
Pendleton Lane P	Defendant	Individual	Defence struck out	Lost	Chandra Mohan of M & A Law Corporation Alvin Chang of M & A Law Corporation Intekhab Ahmad Khan of M & A Law Corporation Jean Ang of M & A Law Corporation
Newfirst Limited	Defendant	Corporation	Defence struck out	Lost	Chandra Mohan of M & A Law Corporation Alvin Chang of M & A Law Corporation Intekhab Ahmad Khan of M & A Law Corporation Jean Ang of M & A Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Cavinder Bull	Drew & Napier LLC
Woo Shu Yan	Drew & Napier LLC
Tan Hee Joek	Drew & Napier LLC
Chandra Mohan	M & A Law Corporation
Alvin Chang	M & A Law Corporation
Intekhab Ahmad Khan	M & A Law Corporation
Jean Ang	M & A Law Corporation

4. Facts

The plaintiff applied to strike out the defence for non-compliance with court orders.
The defendants were ordered to produce the original hard disk of a Dell laptop.
The defendants failed to produce the hard disk by the stipulated date.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision for the production of the hard disk.
The defendants claimed they could not comply because the first defendant did not have the hard disk.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants were prevented from contesting possession by issue estoppel.
The court found that the defendants' conduct amounted to contumelious disregard of the Hard Disk order.

5. Formal Citations

Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P, Suit 511/2005, 522/2005, SUM 5418/2007, 5420/2007, [2008] SGHC 76

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2005-01-01	Suit 511/2005 filed
2005-01-01	Suit 522/2005 filed
2005-10-01	Dell laptop and Hard Disk returned to Judicial Manager
2006-08-11	Defence (Amendment No 1) filed
2006-11-24	Assistant Registrar's decision on Hard Disk production
2006-11-13	Consent Order issued
2007-03-28	Order of Court for production of Hard Disk
2007-04-19	Defendants appealed against court order
2007-09-10	Inspection of documents stored in the Hitachi hard disk
2007-09-11	Inspection of documents stored in the Hitachi hard disk
2007-11-15	Court of Appeal affirmed decision for Hard Disk production
2007-11-19	Plaintiff's solicitors demanded production of Hard Disk
2007-12-03	Defendants maintained inability to comply with Hard Disk order
2007-12-05	Plaintiff's solicitors denounced defendants' excuse
2007-01-01	Summons No 5418/2007 filed
2007-01-01	Summons No 5420/2007 filed
2008-01-22	LPP's 24th Affidavit filed
2008-01-22	LPP's 25th Affidavit filed
2008-06-03	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Striking out of defence
- Outcome: The court struck out the defence due to the defendants' deliberate and persistent failure to comply with court orders.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Non-compliance with court orders
  - Deliberate failure to comply with court orders
  - Contumelious conduct
- Related Cases:
  - [1996] 1 SLR 767
  - [2002] 2 SLR 267
Inspection of electronic documents
- Outcome: The court held that producing computer printouts without producing the original hard disk was insufficient for inspection of electronic documents.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Production of original hard disk
  - Authenticity of computer printouts
  - Sufficiency of producing computer printouts without original hard disk
Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court applied the doctrine of issue estoppel to prevent the defendants from re-litigating the issue of possession of the hard disk.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2003] 2 SLR 91

8. Remedies Sought

Striking out of Defence
Damages to be assessed

9. Cause of Actions

Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
SMS v Power & Energy	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 767	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that the court may strike out pleadings for non-compliance with an 'unless order'.
Soh Lup Chee v Seow Boon Cheng & Anor	High Court	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR 267	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that the court may strike out pleadings for contumacious non-compliance with successive non-peremptory orders for discovery.
The Tokai Maru	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR 105	Singapore	Cited regarding the general discretion to extend time under Order 3 rule 4 in accordance with the dictates of justice.
Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd	N/A	Yes	(1988) Times, 5 March	N/A	Cited regarding the principle that striking out a claim or defence might not be appropriate if the objective of discovery could be ultimately accomplished.
Manilal & Sons v Bhupendra KJ Shan	N/A	Yes	[1989] SLR 1182	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that where the court is satisfied that other documents must exist, the party concerned must either produce them or explain what has become of them.
Federal Lands Commissioner v Neo Hong Huat	High Court	Yes	[1998] SGHC 131	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that it is insufficient to show that there was deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court orders but one has to show further that the fair trial of the action is rendered impossible to achieve because of the deliberate suppression of material documents.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong (No 2)	N/A	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR 833	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that all court orders must be obeyed promptly and punctiliously.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 4 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited regarding the meaning of 'contumelious conduct' and the types of conduct that may justify a striking out order.
Culbert v Stephen G Westwell & Co Ltd & John Bryant	N/A	Yes	[1993] PIQR P54	N/A	Cited regarding the meaning of 'contumelious conduct' and the types of conduct that may justify a striking out order.
Arbuthnot Latham Bank Ltd v Trafalgar Holdings	N/A	Yes	[1998] 1 WLR 1426	N/A	Cited regarding the principle that a striking out order is appropriate without considering the question whether a fair trial is possible or is dependent on the need to show prejudice to the other party.
Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventry City Council	N/A	Yes	[1997] 1 WLR 1666	N/A	Cited regarding the interests of justice in general and the considerations in exercising discretion under Order 24 rule 16(1).
Syed Mohamed Abdul Muthaliff v Arjan Bhisham Chotrani	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 750	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that the party seeking to escape the consequences of his default must show that he had made positive efforts to comply but was prevented from doing so by extraneous circumstances.
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR 91	Singapore	Cited in support of the proposition that the doctrine of issue estoppel may be raised to stop re-litigation of an issue decided in an interlocutory application.
Changhe International Investments Pte Ltd (formerly known as Druidstone Pte Ltd) v Dexia BIL Asia Singapore Ltd (formerly known as Banque International A Luxembourg BIL (Asia) Ltd)	N/A	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 344	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that the ill-judged decision to withdraw the affidavits remained squarely on the litigant himself.
WBG Network (S) Pte Ltd v Sunny Daisy Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR 1133	Singapore	Cited regarding the manner of placing documents before the court without an accompanying sworn affidavit.
Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P	N/A	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR 343	Singapore	Cited for the procedural background of the case and the history of how the Order of Court dated 28 March 2007 came to be made.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 24 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
Order 24 Rule 16(1) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Hard Disk
Discovery
Inspection
Striking Out
Contumelious Conduct
Issue Estoppel
Electronic Documents
Authenticity
Computer Printouts
Unless Order

15.2 Keywords

Striking out
Discovery
Hard disk
Non-compliance
Court order
Evidence
Civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Procedure	80
Civil Practice	75
Evidence	70

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Evidence
Discovery
Inspection of Documents