Xing Rong Pte Ltd v Visionhealthone: Appeal on Discovery Order for Joint Venture Funds

Xing Rong Pte Ltd appealed against the decision of the judge, who had struck out its appeal against the decision of the Assistant Registrar in Summons No 5937 of 2009 where the AR granted the discovery application that the respondent, Visionhealthone Corporation Pte Ltd, had applied for against the Bank of China Ltd, a non–party to the present proceedings. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the Judge’s decision on the striking out order but found that the AR was justified in granting the Discovery Application and dismissed the appeal against the AR’s decision. The case concerned a claim by Visionhealthone against Xing Rong for S$2.125 million based on an agreement to establish a joint venture, with Visionhealthone alleging fraudulent misrepresentation by Xing Rong regarding the use of the funds.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; appeal against the striking out order was allowed, but the appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s decision was dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Xing Rong appealed against a discovery order. The court allowed the appeal against the striking out order but dismissed the appeal against the discovery order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Xing Rong Pte Ltd (formerly known as Huadi Projects Pte Ltd)AppellantCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial
Visionhealthone Corporation Pte LtdRespondentCorporationPartial WinPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kang YixianDonaldson & Burkinshaw
Eric Tin Keng SengDonaldson & Burkinshaw
Gooi Chi DuanDonaldson & Burkinshaw
Jessica SooDonaldson & Burkinshaw
Lim Dao KaiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Dinesh DhillonAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. VHO claimed S$2.125 million from Xing Rong based on an agreement for a joint venture.
  2. VHO alleged it remitted the sum to Xing Rong through fraudulent misrepresentations.
  3. Xing Rong admitted receiving the sum but claimed it was for a currency exchange transaction.
  4. VHO sought production of accounts relating to the movements of the sum.
  5. Xing Rong claimed the documents sought by VHO were not in its possession.
  6. VHO sought production of documents from BOC relating to the movements of the sum.
  7. BOC left it to the court to decide whether it should produce the required documents.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Xing Rong Pte Ltd (Formerly known as Huadi Projects Pte Ltd) v Visionhealthone Corporation Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 14 of 2010, [2010] SGCA 30

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Agreement dated for Joint Venture
Funds remitted to Xing Rong's bank account
Funds remitted to Xing Rong's bank account
Suit No 678 of 2009 filed
Xing Rong filed a notice of appeal against the Discovery Order
VHO applied to strike out the Registrar’s Appeal
Deadline for BOC to appeal against the Discovery Order
Judge struck out Xing Rong’s appeal
Xing Rong filed an appeal against the Judge’s decision
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Locus Standi
    • Outcome: The court held that Xing Rong had locus standi to appeal against the Discovery Order.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Right to appeal
      • Interest in subject matter
  2. Res Judicata
    • Outcome: The court held that the Discovery Order was not res judicata.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Relevance and Necessity of Documents for Discovery
    • Outcome: The court agreed that the Ordered Documents were relevant and necessary for the disposal of the main suit.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Recovery of Sum
  2. Production of Accounts

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Nike International Ltd and another v Campomar SLHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 76SingaporeCited for the proposition that a decision which is not appealed against by a party entitled to do so is res judicata.
Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius and another v Tan Harry and anotherHigh CourtYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 588SingaporeCited regarding co-defendants and benefits of each other's success on appeal.
Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 188SingaporeCited for the principles concerning the striking out of a notice of appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
O 24 r 6 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Discovery Order
  • Joint Venture
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Locus Standi
  • Res Judicata
  • Striking Out Application

15.2 Keywords

  • Discovery
  • Appeal
  • Joint Venture
  • Fraud
  • Singapore
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice70
Evidence60
Contract Law60
Fraud and Deceit50
Litigation40

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Discovery
  • Contract Law