Cosco Nantong v Logitel: Pre-Action Discovery & Abuse of Process

Cosco Nantong Shipyard Co Ltd, the plaintiff, brought Originating Summons No 1106 of 2017 for pre-action discovery against Logitel Offshore Rig II Pte Ltd and Logitel Offshore Pte Ltd, the defendants. The defendants appealed the Assistant Registrar's decision to order production of certain financing documents. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J dismissed the defendants' application for leave to appeal, finding no abuse of process in the plaintiff's request for the documents.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Summons dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Cosco Nantong sought pre-action discovery from Logitel. The court dismissed Logitel's application for leave to appeal, finding no abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

28 November 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Cosco Nantong Shipyard Co Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Summons dismissed with costs	Won	Toh Kian Sing of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Davis Tan Yong Chuan of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Lau Chuan Ying, Rebekah of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Logitel Offshore Rig II Pte Ltd	Defendants, Respondent	Corporation	Application for leave to appeal dismissed	Lost	Jaikanth Shankar of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Bazul Ashhab bin Abdul Kader of Oon & Bazul LLP Davinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Chan Cong Yen Lionel of Oon & Bazul LLP Ashvin Shanmugaraj Thevar of Oon & Bazul LLP Srruthi Ilankathir of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Logitel Offshore Pte Ltd	Defendants, Respondent	Corporation	Application for leave to appeal dismissed	Lost	Jaikanth Shankar of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Bazul Ashhab bin Abdul Kader of Oon & Bazul LLP Davinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Chan Cong Yen Lionel of Oon & Bazul LLP Ashvin Shanmugaraj Thevar of Oon & Bazul LLP Srruthi Ilankathir of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Toh Kian Sing	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Davis Tan Yong Chuan	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Lau Chuan Ying, Rebekah	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Jaikanth Shankar	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Bazul Ashhab bin Abdul Kader	Oon & Bazul LLP
Davinder Singh	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Chan Cong Yen Lionel	Oon & Bazul LLP
Ashvin Shanmugaraj Thevar	Oon & Bazul LLP
Srruthi Ilankathir	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC

4. Facts

Cosco Nantong Shipyard Co Ltd brought OS 1106 for pre-action discovery against Logitel Offshore Rig II Pte Ltd and Logitel Offshore Pte Ltd.
The defendants' director, Mr Matthew Blake, filed an affidavit mentioning certain Financing Agreements.
The plaintiff issued a Notice to Produce dated 18 December 2017, seeking production of the Financing Agreements.
The defendants objected to the production of the Financing Agreements.
The Assistant Registrar ordered production of two categories of documents, including the Financing Agreements.
The defendants appealed the Assistant Registrar's decision.
The defendants filed Summons No 3934 of 2019 for leave to appeal.

5. Formal Citations

Cosco Nantong Shipyard Co Ltd v Logitel Offshore Rig II Pte Ltd and another, Originating Summons No 1106 of 2017 (Summons 3934 of 2019), [2019] SGHC 279

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-09-29	Originating Summons No 1106 of 2017 filed by Cosco Nantong Shipyard Co Ltd
2017-11-28	Mr Matthew Blake filed an affidavit to oppose OS 1106
2017-12-18	Plaintiff issued Notice to Produce
2018-01-12	Defendants filed their Notice Where Documents May Be Inspected
2018-02-02	Plaintiff filed Summons No 632 of 2018
2018-02-12	Mr Blake filed reply affidavit for SUM 632
2018-03-12	Assistant Registrar ordered production of two categories of documents
2019-07-25	Decision of the Assistant Registrar affirmed
2019-09-05	Hearing date
2019-09-12	Hearing date
2019-11-26	Hearing date
2019-11-29	Ex Tempore Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that there was no abuse of process in the plaintiff's serving a Notice to Produce under O 24 r 10 in the context of an application for pre-action discovery under O 24 r 6 of the ROC.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Circumvention of pre-action discovery rules
Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the test for granting leave to appeal was not satisfied.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Pre-action discovery

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

Shipyard

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Tyco Australia Pty Limited v Leighton Contractors Pty Limited	Federal Court of Australia	Yes	[2005] FCAFC 115	Australia	Cited in support of the abuse of process argument regarding the production of documents that are the subject of an underlying pre-action discovery application.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong	N/A	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862	Singapore	Cited for the test for granting leave to appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 24 r 10 of the Rules of Court
O 24 r 6 of the Rules of Court
O 24 r 11 of the Rules of Court
O 24 r 13(1) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Pre-action discovery
Abuse of process
Financing Agreements
Notice to Produce
Leave to appeal

15.2 Keywords

pre-action discovery
abuse of process
financing agreements
leave to appeal
Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Procedure	80
Civil Practice	75
Appellate Practice	60
Evidence	50

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Discovery
Abuse of Process