Intas Pharmaceuticals v DealStreetAsia: Pre-Action Disclosure & Discovery in Malicious Falsehood Claim
In Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed appeals concerning pre-action interrogatories and discovery. Intas sought pre-action disclosure from DealStreetAsia regarding an article published on DealStreetAsia's website about a potential acquisition of Intas by Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. The court allowed Intas's appeal in part, granting leave to serve limited interrogatories concerning the nature of DealStreetAsia's sources, while dismissing DealStreetAsia's appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's appeal allowed in part; Defendant's appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court addresses pre-action disclosure in a malicious falsehood claim, balancing confidentiality and the need to prove malice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Ang Cheng Hock SC, Lim Jun Rui, Ivan, Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy |
| DEALSTREETASIA PTE LTD | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Sim Bock Eng, Sngeeta Rai, Lim Si Wei, Samuel |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| George Wei | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock SC | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Lim Jun Rui, Ivan | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Sim Bock Eng | WongPartnership LLP |
| Sngeeta Rai | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lim Si Wei, Samuel | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- DealStreetAsia published an article stating Sun Pharmaceuticals was in talks to acquire Intas Pharmaceuticals.
- Intas denied the report to DealStreetAsia before publication.
- DealStreetAsia cited 'multiple sources' and 'executives' familiar with the development.
- Intas demanded an apology, calling the article false and baseless.
- DealStreetAsia claimed to have carried out due diligence and had confirmations from reliable sources.
- Intas sought pre-action disclosure of communications and sources' identities to assess a malicious falsehood claim.
5. Formal Citations
- Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd, Originating Summons 734 of 2016(Registrar’s Appeals Nos 362 and 378 of 2016), [2017] SGHC 74
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Article published on Defendant's website | |
| Ms. Gupta emailed Mr. Shah | |
| Mr. Shah replied to Ms. Gupta | |
| Mr. Chudgar emailed Ms. Gupta | |
| Plaintiff's solicitors wrote to Defendant | |
| Plaintiff's solicitors sent a letter to Defendant | |
| Mr. Joji wrote an email to Mr. Chudgar | |
| Plaintiff filed Originating Summons 734 of 2016 | |
| Assistant Registrar granted application in part | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Pre-action Disclosure
- Outcome: The court granted pre-action disclosure in part, allowing limited interrogatories.
- Category: Procedural
- Malicious Falsehood
- Outcome: The court considered the elements of malicious falsehood, including malice, in the context of pre-action disclosure.
- Category: Substantive
- Confidentiality of Sources
- Outcome: The court balanced the interests of the plaintiff in obtaining information against the defendant's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its sources.
- Category: Substantive
- Singapore Nexus
- Outcome: The court found that there was a sufficient nexus between Singapore and the potential cause of action against the defendant.
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- Pre-action Interrogatories
- Pre-action Discovery
9. Cause of Actions
- Malicious Falsehood
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Pharmaceuticals
- Media
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners | N/A | Yes | [1974] AC 133 | N/A | Cited as the origin of Norwich Pharmacal orders, sought by a plaintiff to ascertain the identity of a potential defendant. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 208 | Singapore | Cited for the principles underlying pre-action discovery and interrogatories, and the requirements of necessity and justness. |
| Kuah Kok Kim v Ernst & Young | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 485 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pre-action disclosure is meant to assist a plaintiff who can set out the core substance of the complaint but does not know if he has a viable cause of action. |
| Ching Mun Fong v Standard Chartered Bank | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 185 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that pre-action discovery cannot be granted to assist a plaintiff to develop and finesse his cause of action. |
| Haywood Management Ltd v Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 478 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should consider relevant confidentiality obligations when deciding whether pre-action disclosure ought to be ordered. |
| Challenger Technologies Pte Ltd v Dennison Transoceanic Corp | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR (R) 618 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to prove malicious falsehood. |
| WBG Network (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Meridian Life International Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 727 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of malice in the context of malicious falsehood. |
| South Suburban Co-operative Society Ltd v Orum and Croydon Advertiser Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1937] 3 All ER 133 | England | Cited for the principle that when malice is in issue, the position, standing, character, and opportunities of knowledge of the sources are relevant. |
| White & Co v Credit Reform Association & Credit Index Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1905] 1 KB 653 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the identity of the source is relevant to the issue of malice. |
| Nirumalan K Pillay and others v A Balakrishnan and others | N/A | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 650 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in a defamation case, if the defendant pleads fair comment, the plaintiff must provide particulars of facts from which malice may be inferred. |
| Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1987] AC 46 | N/A | Cited by the Defendant for the test of whether the various connecting factors point to Singapore as the appropriate forum. |
| Success Elegant Trading Ltd v La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1392 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a sufficiently clear nexus to Singapore exists if there is a real possibility of proceedings being commenced in Singapore. |
| Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick | N/A | Yes | (2002) 210 CLR 575 | N/A | Cited for the principle that publication on the internet takes place when the material is accessed by the end user. |
| Ng Koo Kay Benedict v Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 860 | Singapore | Endorsed the principle in Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick that publication on the internet takes place when the material is accessed by the end user. |
| KLW Holdings v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 477 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts should prima facie lean in favor of confidentiality in pre-action discovery applications. |
| Odex Pte Ltd v Pacific Internet Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 18 | Singapore | Cited for dispelling the notion that a higher standard of proof should be imposed in situations where the defendant owes a duty of confidentiality to other parties. |
| Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1977] QB 881 | N/A | Cited for the usual implied undertakings arising from discovery and disclosure orders. |
| Relfo Ltd (in liquidation) v Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 351 | Singapore | Cited for the usual implied undertakings arising from discovery and disclosure orders. |
| Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG | N/A | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 555 | Singapore | Cited for the usual implied undertakings arising from discovery and disclosure orders. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 26A rr 1(1) and 1(5) of the Rules of Court |
| O 24 rr 6(1) and 6(5) of the Rules of Court |
| O 26A r 2 of the Rules of Court |
| O 24 r 7 of the Rules of Court |
| O 18 r 12(1)(b) of the Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Pre-action disclosure
- Malicious falsehood
- Norwich Pharmacal order
- Singapore nexus
- Confidentiality of sources
- Interrogatories
- Discovery
- Communications
- Reliable sources
- Due diligence
15.2 Keywords
- Pre-action disclosure
- Malicious falsehood
- Discovery
- Interrogatories
- Singapore
- Media
- Pharmaceuticals
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Torts
- Media Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Disclosure of Documents
- Discovery of Documents
- Pre-action Disclosure
- Norwich Pharmacal Orders
- Tort Law
- Malicious Falsehood