SK Shipping v IOF: Rules of Court O 24 r 11 Application for Document Production
In SK Shipping Co Ltd v IOF Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by IOF Pte Ltd (the defendant) under Order 24 Rule 11 of the Rules of Court for the production and inspection of documents referred to in the Statement of Claim filed by SK Shipping Co Ltd (the plaintiff). The court ordered SK Shipping to produce documents in categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Annex A, finding that reference was made to these documents in the Statement of Claim and that production was necessary for the fair disposal of the matter.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The court ordered the plaintiff to file and serve a list of documents and an affidavit verifying the same, stating whether it has or has had at any time in its possession, custody or power documents in categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Annex A. No order is made for the documents in categories 8, 14, 15 and 16.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
SK Shipping Co Ltd v IOF Pte Ltd involves an application for document production under O 24 r 11 of the Rules of Court, with the court ordering production.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SK Shipping Co Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Order for Production of Documents | Partial | |
| IOF Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Granted in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Justin Yeo | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vincent Ong | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Winston Wong | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Haireez Jufferie | Joseph Lopez & Co |
4. Facts
- The defendant applied for the production of documents referred to in the plaintiff's Statement of Claim.
- The plaintiff objected to producing certain documents, arguing they were not referred to in the Statement of Claim or were not in their possession.
- The defendant argued that the documents were necessary for the fair disposal of the matter.
- The court found that reference was made to certain documents in the Statement of Claim.
- The court found that the plaintiff had not made sufficient efforts to obtain documents from third parties.
- The court found that production of the documents was necessary for the fair disposal of the matter.
5. Formal Citations
- SK Shipping Co Ltd v IOF Pte Ltd, Suit No 440 of 2012 (Summons No 3808 of 2012), [2012] SGHCR 14
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Action commenced when the plaintiff filed and served the Writ of Summons | |
| Plaintiff issued the Statement of Claim | |
| Defendant requested production of documents referred to in the Statement of Claim | |
| Defendant issued a chaser for the production of documents | |
| Plaintiff responded to the defendant’s request for documents | |
| Defendant issued a Notice to Produce in Form 40 | |
| Pre-trial conference held | |
| Application taken out for the production and/or inspection of documents | |
| First hearing | |
| Second hearing | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Production of Documents
- Outcome: The court ordered the plaintiff to produce documents in categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Annex A, finding that reference was made to these documents in the Statement of Claim and that production was necessary for the fair disposal of the matter.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reference to documents in pleadings
- Possession, custody or power of documents
- Necessity for production
8. Remedies Sought
- Production of Documents
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Discovery
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rafidain Bank v Agom Universal Sugar Trading Co Ltd | English Court | Yes | [1987] WLR 1606 | England | Cited for the principle that the purpose of O 24 r 10 is to confer on the requesting party the same advantage as if the documents referred to had been fully set out in the pleadings and that the omission of the requirement of “possession, custody or power” from the equivalent RSC provision was a deliberate one. |
| Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari and others (No 2) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1989] 1 WLR 731 | England | Cited for the principle that the underlying purpose of O 24 r 10 is to confer on the requesting party the same advantage as if the documents referred to had been fully set out in the pleadings and for the test to be applied in determining whether an assertion in a pleading or affidavit involves a “reference … to any document” within the meaning of O 24 r 10(1). |
| Quilter v Heatly | English Court | Yes | (1883) 23 Ch D 42 | England | Cited for the principle that the underlying purpose of O 24 r 10 is to confer on the requesting party the same advantage as if the documents referred to had been fully set out in the pleadings and that the party referencing such a document should be prepared to be required to permit the inspection of the same, and the other party should be entitled to it. |
| Rubin v Expandable Ltd | English Court | Yes | [2008] 1 WLR 1099 | England | Cited for the principle that in the event that there is no dispute that references were in fact being made to the documents in the pleadings or affidavits, courts are strongly inclined to order production of those documents because the reference to those documents, in and of itself, is construed as a form of disclosure by that party. |
| Woodcliff Assets Ltd v Reflexology and Holistic Health Academy and Others | High Court | No | [2009] SGHC 162 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an order for production of documents for inspection under O 24 r 13 may be made for documents explicitly referred to in pleadings or affidavits, but not for documents which were referred to by inference and that there is no temporal dimension to the test of necessity under O 24 r 13. |
| Zida Technologies Limited v Tiga Technologies v Tiga Technologies Limited and others | High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region | Yes | HCA 5617/2000 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that it is insufficient for the party refusing discovery to demonstrate only the lamest efforts in requesting the necessary documents from the relevant third party. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), O 24 r 11 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), O 24 r 10 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), O 24 r 13 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Production of documents
- Inspection of documents
- Rules of Court
- Statement of Claim
- Possession, custody or power
- Necessity
- Reference to documents
- Charterparty
15.2 Keywords
- Production
- Documents
- Inspection
- Rules of Court
- Shipping
- Charterparty
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Contract Law | 65 |
| Discovery of documents | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Shipping Disputes | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Shipping