Ching Mun Fong v Standard Chartered Bank: Pre-Action Discovery in Contract/Tort Dispute

Ching Mun Fong appealed the High Court's decision to dismiss her application for pre-action discovery against Standard Chartered Bank regarding two disputed commodity-linked premium current investments (CPCI). Fong contemplated commencing an action in contract and/or tort, alleging the bank failed to properly advise her. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Fong had sufficient information to commence proceedings and that the discovery sought was not necessary but rather an attempt to assess the strength of her claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding pre-action discovery application in a contract/tort dispute over commodity-linked investments. Court dismissed the application, finding it unnecessary for commencing proceedings.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Standard Chartered BankRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon
Ching Mun FongAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

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

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Patrick AngRajah & Tann LLP
Alina ChiaRajah & Tann LLP
Mohamed RezaRajah & Tann LLP
Suresh s/o DamodaraDamodara Hazra LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Appellant opened a private banking account with the Respondent on 4 August 2009.
  2. The Appellant gave instructions to enter into two Commodity-Linked Premium Current Investments (CPCI) on 27 and 28 August 2009.
  3. The Respondent repaid the Appellant in US Dollars after exercising options in the CPCI contracts.
  4. The Appellant believed she had the option to redeem the investments in XAU or US Dollars.
  5. The Appellant requested the Respondent to furnish account opening documentation, which the Respondent did not fully produce.
  6. The Appellant applied for pre-action discovery of voice-logs of communications with the Respondent's representatives.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ching Mun Fong v Standard Chartered Bank, Civil Appeal No 120 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 38
  2. Ching Mun Fong v Standard Chartered Bank, , [2012] SGHC 5

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant opened a private banking account with the Respondent bank.
Appellant gave instructions to enter into first Commodity-Linked Premium Current Investment.
Appellant gave instructions to enter into second Commodity-Linked Premium Current Investment.
Appellant made demands for the restitution of her gold holdings.
Appellant's solicitors requested the Respondent to furnish account opening documentation.
Appellant applied under s 47 of the Banking Act for the Respondent to deliver documents.
Appellant filed an amended application for pre-action discovery.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Pre-Action Discovery
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellant had not made out a case for pre-action discovery, as she had sufficient facts to commence proceedings and the discovery sought was to assess the strength of her claim, not to formulate it.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] 3 SLR(R) 485
      • [2003] 1 SLR(R) 375
      • [2004] 4 SLR(R) 39
      • [1973] 1 WLR 586
      • [1974] 1 WLR 1035
      • [2002] 1 WLR 1562
      • [2004] EWHC 1182
      • [2005] EWHC 2827
      • [2003] 1 SLR(R) 321
      • [2006] 1 SLR(R) 283

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Pre-Action Discovery

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Banking Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Kuah Kok Kim v Ernst & YoungCourt of AppealYes[1996] 3 SLR(R) 485SingaporeCited for the principle that pre-action discovery is to allow a potential plaintiff to determine whether he has a good cause of action.
Ng Giok Oh v Sajjad AkhtarHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 375SingaporeCited for the principle that if a cause of action has already accrued, the plaintiffs ought to commence the writ action and proceed to discovery in the usual course.
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 39SingaporeCited for the principle that pre-action discovery is not meant for claimants who have sufficient evidence to mount a claim, but rather for those who do not yet know whether they have a viable claim.
Dunning v Board of Governors of the United Liverpool HospitalsEnglish Court of AppealYes[1973] 1 WLR 586England and WalesCited as an illustration of the difficulty in drawing the line between seeking materials to mount a claim and obtaining information to determine whether a claim has a reasonable prospect of success.
Shaw v Vauxhall Motors LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1974] 1 WLR 1035England and WalesCited to show that English courts considered pre-action discovery to be available and desirable to enable a potential plaintiff to decide if a claim should be brought, but distinguished as relating to legally aided cases.
Black v Sumitomo CorporationEnglish Court of AppealYes[2002] 1 WLR 1562England and WalesCited for the observation that pre-trial disclosure was not intended to assist only those who could already plead a cause of action to improve their pleadings, but also those who needed disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or as a vital ingredient in the pleading of their case, but distinguished due to different rules.
XL London Market Ltd & Anor v Zenith Syndicate Management LtdHigh Court of JusticeYes[2004] EWHC 1182England and WalesCited for the principle that it is a powerful argument against an order that the applicant can well make a case without disclosure.
First Gulf Bank v Wachovia Bank National AssociationHigh Court of JusticeYes[2005] EWHC 2827England and WalesCited for the principle that pre-action discovery should not be granted if what the applicant really seeks is further material to improve their case and to allow them to be better informed in deciding whether or not to proceed.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG Singapore BranchHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 321SingaporeCited as an example of a case where pre-action discovery was ordered because the documents were within the exclusive possession of the respondent.
Asta Rickmers Schiffahrtsagesellschaft mbH & Cie KG v Hub MarineHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 283SingaporeCited as an example of a case where pre-action discovery was ordered because the documents were within the exclusive possession of the respondent.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 24 r 6
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 24 r 7
Rules of Court O 18 r 7

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Banking Act (Cap 19, 2008 Rev Ed) s 47Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 18(2)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Pre-Action Discovery
  • Commodity-Linked Premium Current Investments
  • CPCI
  • Voice-Logs
  • Banking Secrecy
  • Necessity
  • Relevance

15.2 Keywords

  • Pre-action discovery
  • Banking Act
  • Commodity-Linked Investments
  • Singapore
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Pre-action discovery90
Civil Procedure80
Banking Law70
Contract Law60
Torts50
Evidence40
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Banking
  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Discovery