Lao PDR v. Sanum Investments: Subpoenas for Arbitration Document Production
The Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) applied to the Singapore High Court for subpoenas to be issued against Lawrance Lai, an accountant at Ernst & Young, to produce documents relevant to two ongoing international arbitration proceedings brought by Sanum Investments Ltd and Lao Holdings NV against the Lao PDR. The arbitrations relate to disputes arising from gaming investments in the Lao PDR. Quentin Loh J allowed the applications, ordering the subpoenas to be issued, and provided grounds for the decision, which was related to the propriety of an audit.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Applications for subpoenas to produce documents allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court compels document production in support of international arbitration between Lao PDR, Sanum Investments, and Lao Holdings, concerning gaming investments.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lao Holdings NV | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| SANUM INVESTMENTS LTD | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| The Lao People's Democratic Republic | Plaintiff | Government Agency | Applications for subpoenas to produce documents allowed | Won | |
| Lawrance Lai Wei Chong | Defendant | Individual | Lost | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Lao PDR is engaged in two ongoing arbitration proceedings brought by Sanum Investments and Lao Holdings.
- The arbitrations relate to disputes arising from gaming investments made by Sanum Investment and Lao Holdings in the Lao PDR.
- Sanum Investment and Lao Holdings allege that a dispute arose with local partners regarding access to financial and operational documents.
- The Lao PDR Prime Minister’s Office intervened and ordered a government audit of Savan Vegas.
- Ernst & Young was involved in the audit between 5 July and 10 July 2012.
- The audit resulted in an audit report by Ernst & Young on 20 July 2012.
- The Lao PDR central government began issuing demands for payments concerning three tax debts with penalties and interest.
5. Formal Citations
- The Lao People’s Democratic Republic v Sanum Investments Ltd and another and another matter, Originating Summonses Nos 521 and 522 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 183
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Notice of arbitration filed by Sanum Investment at ICSID | |
| Notice of arbitration filed by Lao Holdings at ICSID | |
| Lao PDR Ministry of Planning and Investment purportedly conferred solicitors with authorisation | |
| Procedural conference before the arbitral tribunal | |
| Joint request made by the parties to Ernst & Young's offices in Singapore, Hong Kong and the Lao PDR | |
| Ernst & Young indicated that it did not believe that it had sufficient authorisation to produce the documents | |
| Lao PDR filed OS 521/2013 and OS 522/2013 | |
| Originating summonses and supporting affidavits were served on Lawrance Lai | |
| Senior Assistant Registrar gave leave for Lawrance Lai's affidavit to be filed | |
| Solicitors for Lawrance Lai queried the solicitors for the Lao PDR | |
| Lao PDR Ministry of Finance wrote to Ernst & Young, including Lawrance Lai in Singapore, instructing them to release the said documents to the Lao PDR’s solicitors in the arbitrations | |
| First hearing before Quentin Loh J | |
| Quentin Loh J allowed the applications in both OS 521/2013 and OS 522/2013 and issued subpoenas to produce documents against Lawrance Lai | |
| Lawrance Lai filed appeals against the orders | |
| Appeals were withdrawn | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Issuance of Subpoenas for Document Production in International Arbitration
- Outcome: The court allowed the applications for subpoenas to be issued against Lawrance Lai to produce documents relevant to the arbitration proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Relevance and Materiality of Documents Sought in Arbitration
- Outcome: The court found that the documents sought, including emails, notes, memoranda, and work papers, were relevant and material to the issues raised in the arbitration proceedings.
- Category: Substantive
- Propriety of Audit
- Outcome: The court found that the documents sought would shed light on the circumstances of Ernst & Young’s appointment and the audit itself, which were issues raised in the arbitrations.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Gaming
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chantrey Martin (a Firm) v Martin | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1953] 2 QB 286 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that an accountant's working papers remain the property of the accountants who produced them. |
| Kuah Kok Kim and others v Ernst & Young | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 485 | Singapore | Cited as precedent where the Singapore Court of Appeal ordered pre-action discovery of an accountant firm’s working papers as they were found to be relevant. |
| Sunderland Steamship P and I Association v Gatoil International Inc (the “Lorenzo Halcoussi”) | N/A | Yes | [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 180 | England | Cited for the principle that a subpoena to produce documents should not amount to an attempt to obtain discovery against a third party. |
| Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc and Others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 WLR 1372 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the test for allowing something to be produced under a writ of subpoena duces tecum is not merely that it is or may be relevant to the conduct of the litigation. |
| BNP Paribas v Deloitte and Touche LLP | N/A | Yes | [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 233 | England | Cited to distinguish the present case from one where the application for document production was considered an application for disclosure from a third party. |
| Teo Wai Cheong v Crédit Industriel et Commercial and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 573 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of discovery is to have documents disclosed before the hearing of any matter to allow the parties to evaluate their cases, thus clarifying the issues between them, reducing surprises at the trial and also encouraging settlement |
| Compagnie Financière et Commerciale de Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co | N/A | Yes | (1882) 11 QBD 55 | N/A | Cited for the test in an application for specific discovery, the well-known Peruvian Guano principle |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Subpoena
- International Arbitration
- Document Production
- Gaming Investments
- Audit
- Relevance
- Materiality
- Ernst & Young
- Savan Vegas
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- subpoena
- document production
- Lao PDR
- Sanum Investments
- Lao Holdings
- Ernst & Young
- gaming
- audit
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- International Law