Giorgio Ferrari Pte Ltd v Lifebrandz Ltd: Breach of Contract & Discovery Order Dispute
Giorgio Ferrari Pte Ltd appealed against the decision to strike out its claim against Lifebrandz Ltd and others for breach of contract due to failure to comply with a specific discovery order. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Andrew Ang J, dismissed the appeal, finding that Giorgio Ferrari Pte Ltd had not fully complied with the discovery order and that its conduct warranted the striking out of its claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding striking out of claim for failure to comply with discovery order in breach of contract case. Appeal dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Giorgio Ferrari Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | David Liew |
| Lifebrandz Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Chan Wei Meng, Ho Kheng Lian |
| Second to Fifth Respondents | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| First Respondent | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| David Liew | LawHub LLC |
| Chan Wei Meng | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Ho Kheng Lian | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Giorgio Ferrari Pte Ltd entered into contracts with the Second to Fifth Respondents to sell alcohol products.
- A dispute arose regarding the Appellant's calculation of its average gross profit margin.
- The Respondents applied for specific discovery of documents related to the Appellant's gross profit, net sales, and costs.
- The court issued Specific Discovery Orders requiring the Appellant to produce relevant documents.
- The Appellant failed to fully comply with the Specific Discovery Orders, leading to an Unless Order.
- The Appellant was granted a Varied Unless Order with a final deadline to comply.
- The court found that the Appellant still failed to fully comply with the Varied Unless Order.
5. Formal Citations
- Giorgio Ferrari Pte Ltd v Lifebrandz Ltd and others, Suit No 894 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 219 of 2012), [2012] SGHC 206
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contracts entered into between Appellant and Second to Fifth Respondents | |
| Contract period began | |
| Contract period ended | |
| Action commenced by Appellant against Second to Fifth Respondents | |
| Summons No 5029 of 2010 filed | |
| Specific Discovery Orders made | |
| Deadline for Appellant to file affidavit | |
| Deadline for Appellant to file Supplementary List of Documents | |
| SAR Ng ordered Appellant to comply with Specific Discovery Orders by 10 February 2011 | |
| Appellant filed Third Supplementary List of Documents | |
| SAR Ng made First Unless Order | |
| Lai Siu Chiu J granted Varied Unless Order | |
| Appellant served Fourth Supplementary List of Documents | |
| Deadline for Appellant to comply with Varied Unless Order | |
| Appellant sent letter explaining SLOD4 documents | |
| SAR Ng allowed Respondents three weeks to review documents | |
| Respondents sought clarification with regard to items 1 and 2 of SLOD3, as well as the SLOD4 documents | |
| Appellant’s solicitors sent a letter of clarification to the Respondents’ solicitors | |
| Appellant served Fifth Supplementary List of Documents | |
| SAR Ng directed the Appellant to provide the documents listed in SLOD5 by 4pm on 30 March 2012 | |
| SLOD5 documents were furnished to the Respondents | |
| Bernard Lim Miang’s 23rd affidavit dated | |
| PTC hearing adjourned to | |
| AR Chua dismissed the Appellant’s claim against the Respondents without further order | |
| AR Chua dismissed the Appellant’s claim against the Respondents without further order | |
| Appellant’s appeal against the dismissal of its claim heard | |
| Appellant’s appeal against the dismissal of its claim heard | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the merits of the breach of contract claim, as the case was dismissed due to non-compliance with a discovery order.
- Category: Substantive
- Compliance with Discovery Orders
- Outcome: The court held that the Appellant failed to fully comply with the Varied Unless Order, justifying the striking out of its claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to produce documents
- Contumelious conduct
- Breach of Unless Order
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Alcohol
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Cited regarding the enforcement of unless orders and whether a breach was intentional and contumelious. |
| Wiltopps (Asia) Ltd v Drew & Napier | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 252 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the terms of an unless order are not complied with, the action is dismissed without further order. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that disobedience of a peremptory order will be considered contumelious conduct justifying a striking out. |
| Syed Mohamed Abdul Muthaliff v Arjan Bhisham Chotrani | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should exercise its discretion whether to grant an extension of time for compliance with an unless order in the light of all the circumstances. |
| Changhe International Investments Pte Ltd v Dexia BIL Asia Singapore Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 598 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the defaulter had to give proper explanation for its failure to comply and show that no further disobedience of the court orders would occur. |
| Soh Lup Chee v Seow Boon Cheng | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the court was satisfied that certain documents had to exist, the party had either to produce them or explain on oath what has become of them. |
| Federal Lands Commissioner v Neo Hong Huat | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 131 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that taking the position that the action had been bifurcated and that certain documents were not necessary because they related to damages would not prevent enforcement of an unless order. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Specific Discovery Orders
- Unless Order
- Varied Unless Order
- Contumelious Conduct
- Gross Profit Margin
- Supplementary List of Documents
- Compliance
- Breach of Contract
15.2 Keywords
- breach of contract
- discovery order
- unless order
- compliance
- striking out
- Singapore
- civil procedure
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Discovery
- Breach of Contract