Banque Cantonale v Allen & Gledhill: Discovery, Fishing Expeditions, and Legal Professional Negligence
In Suit 504 of 2010, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Assistant Registrar Kathryn Thong, addressed a summons by Banque Cantonale de Geneve SA ('the Plaintiff') for a further and better list of documents from Allen & Gledhill LLP ('the Defendant'). The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for breach of contract and/or negligence related to advice given in an admiralty action. The court considered whether the Plaintiff's request constituted a 'fishing expedition' and examined the relevance and necessity of the requested documents. Ultimately, the court ordered the Defendant to provide a further and better list of documents pertaining to court attendance notes where the Defendant acted for the Plaintiff and non-court attendance notes generated between the Defendant, Plaintiff, and/or Waterson Hicks, with each party bearing its own costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Further and better list of documents ordered for specific categories; each party to bear its own costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed a dispute over a request for a further list of documents, focusing on whether it constituted a 'fishing expedition' and the scope of discovery in a legal negligence claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banque Cantonale de Geneve SA | Plaintiff | Corporation | Partial Success | Partial | |
| Allen & Gledhill LLP | Defendant | Limited Liability Partnership | Partial Loss | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kathryn Thong | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Liew Teck Huat | Global Alliance LLC |
| Cheryl Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Li Yuen Ting | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for breach of contract and/or negligence.
- The Plaintiff sought a further and better list of documents from the Defendant.
- The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff was embarking on a 'fishing expedition'.
- The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant failed to disclose relevant documents.
- The Defendant contended it had disclosed all relevant documents.
- The court found some classes of documents relevant and necessary for discovery.
5. Formal Citations
- Banque Cantonale de Geneve SA v Allen & Gledhill LLP, Suit No 504 of 2010 (Summons 6428/2009), [2010] SGHC 39
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Vessel arrested | |
| Warrant of arrest set aside and writ of summons struck out | |
| Appeal against setting aside of arrest dismissed | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed appeal and allowed claim for damages arising from wrongful arrest of the Vessel | |
| Statement of Claim filed | |
| Defence filed | |
| Reply filed | |
| Defendant filed its list of documents with an affidavit verifying the list | |
| Plaintiff obtained leave to file its list of documents | |
| Parties were to carry out inspection | |
| Plaintiff took out the Summons | |
| Summons and the supporting affidavit were served on the Defendant | |
| Hearing | |
| Hearing | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Scope of Discovery
- Outcome: The court clarified the scope of general and specific discovery, emphasizing the importance of relevance and necessity. The court ordered the Defendant to provide a further and better list of documents pertaining to court attendance notes where the Defendant acted for the Plaintiff and non-court attendance notes generated between the Defendant, Plaintiff, and/or Waterson Hicks.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of documents
- Necessity of documents
- Fishing expedition
- Related Cases:
- [2007] SGHC 69
- [2003] 1 SLR(R) 75
- [2002] 2 SLR(R) 465
- [2004] 4 SLR(R) 39
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not make a determination on the merits of the breach of contract claim, focusing instead on the procedural issue of discovery.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court did not make a determination on the merits of the negligence claim, focusing instead on the procedural issue of discovery.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Further and better list of documents
- Damages for wrongful arrest of the Vessel
- Reputational loss
- Loss of opportunity to pursue arbitration
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 69 | Singapore | Cited regarding the 'fishing' metaphor in discovery applications. |
| Goddard v Shoal Harbour Marine Services Ltd. et al | British Columbia Supreme Court | Yes | 24 Western Weekly Reports 166 | Canada | Cited to illustrate the ambiguity of the 'fishing' metaphor in the context of discovery. |
| Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 75 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a 'fishing expedition' in the context of discovery. |
| Hickman v Taylor | United States Supreme Court | Yes | 329 U.S. 495,507 (1947) | United States | Cited to show that the term 'fishing expedition' cannot preclude a party from inquiring facts underlying the opponent’s case. |
| Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 465 | Singapore | Cited to explain that documents which were required to be discovered under the concept of ‘train of inquiry’ are no longer discoverable under the present Order 24 rule 1. |
| Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 39 | Singapore | Cited to explain that the ultimate test is whether discovery is necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings or for saving costs. |
| Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 54 | Singapore | Cited to explain that necessity is the key to discovery. |
| Soh Lup Chee & Ors v Seow Boon Cheng & Anor | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604 | Singapore | Cited regarding affidavits verifying lists of documents and the existence of other documents. |
| British Association of Glass Bottle Manufacturers v Nettlefold | Court of King's Bench | Yes | [1912] 1 KB 369 | England and Wales | Cited regarding inferences that a document in a list implied the existence of a source document. |
| Ser Kim Koi and another v Fulton William Merrell and others | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R)1063 | Singapore | Cited regarding the removal of irrelevant documents from the Original list unless they are privileged. |
| The “Vasily Golovnin” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Reference to the Court of Appeal’s decision in CA 109/2007 and CA110/2007. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 24 rule 1 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 24 rule 5 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 24 rule 7 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Discovery
- Fishing expedition
- Further and better list of documents
- Relevance
- Necessity
- General discovery
- Specific discovery
- Train of inquiry
15.2 Keywords
- Discovery
- Fishing expedition
- Legal negligence
- Singapore High Court
- Civil procedure
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Legal Ethics