Haywood Management Ltd v Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd: Pre-Action Discovery & Conspiracy/Fraud Claim
Haywood Management Ltd applied for pre-action interrogatories and discovery against Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd (EAT), contemplating an action in conspiracy and/or fraud related to the sale of multi-role light frigates. The High Court dismissed EAT's appeal regarding pre-action discovery but declined to order pre-action interrogatories, granting Haywood liberty to restore the application if EAT failed to comply with discovery obligations. The court found that Haywood needed the discovery to determine the viability of its claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with respect to pre-action discovery; no order made for pre-action interrogatories.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding pre-action discovery for a conspiracy/fraud claim. The court affirmed the order for pre-action discovery, denying pre-action interrogatories.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haywood Management Ltd | Applicant, Respondent | Corporation | Application for pre-action discovery granted in part | Partial | Andy Lem, Toh Wei Yi, Zack Quek |
| Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial | Kristy Tan, Toh Jia Yi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andy Lem | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
| Toh Wei Yi | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
| Zack Quek | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
| Kristy Tan | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Toh Jia Yi | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- Haywood sought pre-action discovery from EAT in contemplation of a conspiracy and/or fraud action.
- Haywood and EAT had no direct contractual relationship.
- The dispute arose from the sale of three multi-role light frigates initially owned by Royal Brunei Technical Services Sendirian Berhad.
- Haywood extended money to Global Naval Systems Pte Ltd to fulfill payment obligations to Royal Brunei Technical Services Sendirian Berhad.
- Fr. Lurssen Werft GmbH & Co. KG obtained title in the MRLFs from Royal Brunei Technical Services Sendirian Berhad.
- The transaction was structured as a sale from Fr. Lurssen Werft GmbH & Co. KG to EAT, and then from EAT to the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Indonesia.
- Haywood suspected that EAT and entities in the Lurssen Group conspired to artificially depress the sale price of the MRLFs.
5. Formal Citations
- Haywood Management Ltd v Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 1055 of 2013, (Registrar's Appeal No 34 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 164
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Peter Lurssen approached Mohamad Ajami with a business proposal concerning the MRLFs. | |
| Global Naval Systems Pte Ltd concluded a sales agency agreement with Royal Brunei Technical Services Sendirian Berhad. | |
| Haywood and Global Naval Systems Pte Ltd entered into a loan agreement. | |
| Haywood and Global Naval Systems Pte Ltd executed an Amended and Restated Loan Agreement. | |
| Robertus Van der Wurff informed Haywood that Fr. Lurssen Werft GmbH & Co. KG had obtained title in the MRLFs from Royal Brunei Technical Services Sendirian Berhad. | |
| Fr. Lurssen Werft GmbH & Co. KG sent a letter to Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd stating the agreed sale price of €270m for the MRLFs. | |
| Robertus Van der Wurff forwarded draft copies of the sale and purchase agreements to Rashid Ibrahim. | |
| Haywood learned from an Indonesian media report that the MRLFs would be sold to the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Indonesia for US$385m. | |
| Global Naval Systems Pte Ltd informed Haywood that the sale price of the MRLFs in the Fr. Lurssen Werft GmbH & Co. KG - Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd contract was US$170m. | |
| Ibrahim met Rob in Amsterdam, where explanations were provided to justify the disparity in sale prices. | |
| Haywood's solicitors sent a letter to Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd requesting documents and information relating to the sale transactions. | |
| Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd rejected Haywood's request. | |
| Rashid Ibrahim’s 1st Affidavit was dated. | |
| Draft EAT-MOD contract was dated. | |
| Yaakov Carlos Loiter’s 1st Affidavit was dated. | |
| The Assistant Registrar granted Haywood's application for pre-action discovery in part. | |
| Defendant’s Written Submissions were dated. | |
| Plaintiff’s Written Submissions were dated. | |
| Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd filed an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. | |
| Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd filed a notice of appeal. | |
| The application for leave to appeal was heard. | |
| High Court dismissed EAT's appeal with respect to the AR’s order as to pre-action discovery. |
7. Legal Issues
- Pre-action Discovery
- Outcome: The court affirmed the order for pre-action discovery, finding it necessary for Haywood to determine the viability of its claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Necessity of discovery
- Confidentiality obligations
- Circumventing arbitration clause
- Related Cases:
- [2004] 4 SLR(R) 39
- [1996] 3 SLR(R) 485
- [2012] 4 SLR 185
- [2014] 2 SLR 208
- [2002] 2 SLR(R) 477
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 18
- [2003] 1 SLR(R) 321
- [2010] 1 SLR 25
- Tort of Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court considered whether Haywood had sufficient facts to plead a viable claim in the tort of conspiracy.
- Category: Substantive
- Confidentiality Obligations
- Outcome: The court considered the confidentiality obligations of Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd to other parties, such as the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Indonesia.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2002] 2 SLR(R) 477
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 18
- [2003] 1 SLR(R) 321
- [1977] 1 QB 881
8. Remedies Sought
- Pre-action discovery
- Pre-action interrogatories
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy
- Fraud
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Defense
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and other applications | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 39 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that disbelief of one's position cannot be the basis for pre-action discovery. |
| Kuah Kok Kim and others v Ernst & Young | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 478 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement to state one's case sufficiently to enable the defendants to take legal advice and act accordingly. |
| Kuah Kok Kim v Ernst & Young | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 485 | Singapore | Leading authority on pre-action discovery, stating the duty to set out the substance of the claim and ensuring the application is not a fishing expedition. |
| Ching Mun Fong v Standard Chartered Bank | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 185 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pre-action discovery is unnecessary when an individual is in a position to commence proceedings. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 208 | Singapore | Recognized that the principles underlying both pre-action discovery and pre-action interrogatories remain broadly the same. |
| KLW Holdings Ltd v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 477 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts are entitled to lean in favor of confidentiality in pre-action discovery applications. |
| Odex Pte Ltd v Pacific Internet Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 18 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the guide should still be the interest of justice when considering confidentiality in pre-action discovery. |
| Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG Singapore Branch | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 321 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has to determine whether the information sought falls within the scope of the confidentiality clause. |
| Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977] 1 QB 881 | England and Wales | Cited for the implied undertaking by the party who is entitled to discovery of documents to use the disclosed documents for the conduct of the case only and not for any other purpose. |
| Navigator Investment Services Ltd v Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's power to grant pre-action discovery or pre-action interrogatories should not be curtailed in the context of multi-party proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 24 r 6(3)(a) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 26A r 2 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Pre-action discovery
- Multi-role light frigates
- Conspiracy
- Fraud
- Confidentiality obligations
- Sale price disparity
- ARLA
- MRLFs
- FLW-EAT contract
- EAT-MOD contract
15.2 Keywords
- pre-action discovery
- conspiracy
- fraud
- maritime
- defense industry
- Singapore
- High Court
- civil procedure
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Commercial Law
- Contract Law
- Torts
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Tort Law
- Conspiracy
- Fraud