K Solutions v NUS: Striking Out for Document Destruction & Discovery Obligations

In K Solutions Pte Ltd v National University of Singapore, the High Court of Singapore dismissed K Solutions' appeal against the decision to strike out its claim for wrongful termination and defence to counterclaim, and to enter judgment for NUS on its counterclaim for damages. The court found that K Solutions had deliberately destroyed and suppressed relevant documents, including emails and audio recordings, in violation of its discovery obligations, making a fair trial impossible. The court also dismissed K Solutions' application to adduce additional evidence.

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

K Solutions' claim against NUS was struck out due to deliberate document destruction and suppression, impacting a fair trial. The court emphasized the importance of discovery obligations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
K Solutions Pte LtdPlaintiff, AppellantCorporationClaim Dismissed, Defence to Counterclaim Struck Out, Appeal DismissedLost, Lost, LostLok Vi Ming, Audrey Chiang, Chu Hua Yi
National University of SingaporeDefendant, RespondentStatutory BoardJudgment for DefendantWonCavinder Bull, Lim Gerui

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lok Vi MingRodyk & Davidson LLP
Audrey ChiangRodyk & Davidson LLP
Chu Hua YiRodyk & Davidson LLP
Cavinder BullDrew & Napier LLP
Lim GeruiDrew & Napier LLP

4. Facts

  1. K Solutions (KS) entered into a contract with National University of Singapore (NUS) for the ISIS Project.
  2. NUS alleged KS had financial difficulties preventing continuation of the Project.
  3. NUS terminated KS' contract for the Project.
  4. KS commenced action against NUS for wrongful termination.
  5. NUS counterclaimed damages.
  6. NUS alleged KS destroyed relevant documents, suppressed discovery, and lied about it.
  7. AL, managing director of KS, configured his email to delete items more than six months old.
  8. KS staff were instructed to backup their NUS email accounts before deactivation.
  9. KS cleansed staff laptops of data, including emails from KS email accounts.
  10. Audio recordings of meetings between KS and NUS were not disclosed.

5. Formal Citations

  1. K Solutions Pte Ltd v National University of Singapore, Suit 5/2007, RA 432/2008, [2009] SGHC 143

6. Timeline

DateEvent
K Solutions entered into a contract with NUS for the ISIS Project.
K Solutions informed NUS of financial difficulties.
KS' staff moved out of NUS offices for the Project.
All but three of KS' staff stopped work on the Project.
NUS issued a written notice requiring KS to cure its defaults.
NUS terminated KS' contract for the Project.
K Solutions commenced action against NUS for wrongful termination.
Parties ordered to give discovery of documents.
KS and NUS filed their respective lists of documents.
NUS demanded further discovery from KS.
KS' solicitors stated that KS had discovered further documents.
KS filed a supplementary list of documents.
KS filed the 8th affidavit of AL to disclose two digital video discs.
D&N sent a telefax to R&D regarding AL's false statement.
R&D replied regarding AL's email account configuration.
D&N sent a telefax stating NUS would take appropriate steps.
R&D responded that KS would file an affidavit.
AL's 11th affidavit was filed.
Summons 2245/08 was filed to compel KS to provide more information.
Hearing of Summons 2245/08.
Appeals heard by Justice Belinda Ang.
AL's 23rd affidavit stated he had not stopped the deletion of documents.
Summons 3619/08 was filed to seek discovery from KS.
R&D wrote regarding collation of project documentation.
NUS was served with the 24th affidavit of AL.
Order of court made in Summons 3619/08.
KS was served with a Notice to Produce Documents.
AL's 26th affidavit filed.
Inspection took place.
NUS applied in Summons 4335/08 to strike out KS' statement of claim.
An assistant registrar granted NUS' application.
Appeal dismissed.
KS' solicitors made a written request for further arguments.
Arguments heard on KS' application and dismissed.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Striking out for destruction of documents
    • Outcome: The court upheld the decision to strike out the statement of claim and defence to counterclaim due to deliberate destruction and suppression of documents.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Suppression of evidence
      • Contumelious disregard of discovery obligations
      • Lying about failure to make proper discovery
  2. Principles governing court's exercise of discretion in striking out
    • Outcome: The court considered the principles governing its discretion, including the intention behind the destruction of documents and whether a fair trial was still possible.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Factors to be considered in making decision to order striking out
      • Intention behind destruction
      • Whether possibility of fair trial was determinative factor

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Wrongful Termination
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Civil Procedure

11. Industries

  • Information Technology
  • Education

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Federal Lands Commissioner v Neo Hong HuatHigh CourtYes[1998] SGHC 131SingaporeCited for the principle that it is not necessary to show that a fair trial is impossible where there was deliberate and contumacious disregard of court orders.
McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Services LtdSupreme Court of VictoriaYes[2002] VSC 73AustraliaCited regarding the deliberate destruction of documents and the appropriate order to strike out the defence.
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Cowell (representing the estate of Rolah Ann McCabe, deceased)Court of AppealYes[2002] VSCA 197AustraliaCited for the 'McCabe test' regarding the destruction of documents before the commencement of proceedings and the requirement of an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3)UnknownYes[2003] EMLR 29EnglandCited for adopting the McCabe test and considering whether a fair trial is achievable.
Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd v LeeSupreme Court of QueenslandYes[2003] QSC 303AustraliaCited for emphasizing the intention of the person who destroys evidence and the requirement of a clear inability to have a fair trial.
Tan Chor Chuan v Tan Yeow Hiang KennethHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 259SingaporeCited for the court's inherent power to respond to pre-action destruction of documents and the considerations for intervention.
Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P & anorUnknownYes[2008] 4 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that a Singapore court may order a striking out without finding that a fair trial is not possible.
Soh Lup Chee v Seow Boon ChengUnknownYes[2002] 2 SLR 267SingaporeCited as an instance where the court may strike out pleadings for non-compliance with the Rules of Court or orders of court.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong (No 2)UnknownYes[1997] 2 SLR 853SingaporeCited as an instance where the court may strike out pleadings for non-compliance with the Rules of Court or orders of court.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan YewUnknownYes[2001] 4 SLR 1SingaporeCited as an instance where the court may strike out pleadings for non-compliance with the Rules of Court or orders of court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) Order 24 r 1Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) Order 24 r 16(1)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) Order 92 r 4Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Integrated student information system
  • Discovery obligations
  • Document destruction
  • Suppression of evidence
  • Fair trial
  • Contumelious conduct
  • Housekeeping policy
  • NUS email accounts
  • KS email accounts
  • Audio recordings

15.2 Keywords

  • Discovery
  • Striking out
  • Document destruction
  • Email
  • Audio recordings
  • Civil procedure
  • Singapore
  • High Court

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Discovery
  • Striking Out
  • Abuse of Process

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Striking Out
  • Discovery