DMX Technologies v Deloitte: Discovery Order Dispute on Document Enumeration and Inspection
DMX Technologies Group Ltd (in liquidation) sued Deloitte & Touche LLP in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for breach of contract and breach of duties owed under tort. The defendant applied for an order to strike out the action unless the plaintiff complied with specific discovery orders. The court declined to grant the unless orders but made specific orders regarding the listing and inspection of documents, finding that the plaintiff had not fully complied with the initial discovery order.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for unless orders declined; specific orders made regarding compliance with discovery order.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
DMX Technologies Group Ltd (in liquidation) sues Deloitte & Touche LLP for breach of contract and tort. The court addresses disputes over a discovery order.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMX Technologies Group Ltd (in liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Specific discovery orders made against Plaintiff | Partial | |
| Deloitte & Touche LLP | Defendant | Limited Liability Partnership | Application for unless orders declined | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Justin Yeo | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff, DMX Technologies Group Ltd (in liquidation), sued the Defendant, Deloitte & Touche LLP, for breach of contract and tort.
- A Discovery Order was made against the Plaintiff on 23 July 2021, requiring a further supplementary list of documents.
- The Plaintiff filed the Plaintiff’s 4th Supplementary List of Documents (P4SLOD) and an affidavit verifying the P4SLOD on 28 October 2021.
- The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff failed to sufficiently enumerate documents in P4SLOD and failed to provide copies of the documents.
- The Plaintiff offered inspection of originals in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) due to practical difficulties in bringing them to Singapore.
- The Defendant sought an order that the action be struck out unless the Plaintiff complied with the Discovery Order.
5. Formal Citations
- DMX Technologies Group Ltd (in liquidation) v Deloitte & Touche LLP, Suit No 920 of 2017 (Summons No 5798 of 2021), [2022] SGHCR 2
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit filed (Suit No 920 of 2017) | |
| Discovery Order made against the Plaintiff | |
| Appeal against Discovery Order dismissed | |
| Plaintiff filed and served Plaintiff’s 4th Supplementary List of Documents and Verifying Affidavit | |
| Defendant’s solicitors requested softcopies of the documents | |
| Plaintiff’s solicitors informed the Defendant’s solicitors that the Plaintiff was compiling the softcopies and that the originals were located overseas | |
| Defendant’s solicitors highlighted that the Plaintiff failed to sufficiently enumerate documents, produce softcopies, and wished to inspect originals | |
| Defendant’s solicitors reiterated positions, but there was no response from the Plaintiff’s solicitors | |
| Plaintiff’s solicitors provided softcopies of the documents | |
| Defendant brought application for unless order | |
| Hearing of the application | |
| Clarificatory submissions received | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Compliance with Discovery Orders
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff had failed to comply with paragraph 1 of the Discovery Order regarding the enumeration and description of documents. The court made specific orders regarding the inspection of original documents.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Proper enumeration and description of documents
- Inspection of original documents
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 3 SLR 807
- Solicitor's Duty to Supervise Discovery
- Outcome: The court declined to grant the order sought by the Defendant regarding an explanation on affidavit on the conduct of the Plaintiff and its solicitors in relation to the failure to provide copies of the documents at the time of service of P4SLOD, and the steps taken by the Plaintiff’s solicitors to discharge their duty to supervise the discovery process.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 3 SLR 573
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking out of action
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Duties Owed Under Tort
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Technology
- Accounting
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Shieh-Peen Clement v Ho Chin Nguang | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 807 | Singapore | Cited as the relevant case authority on enumerating and describing bundles of documents for discovery under O 24 r 3(1) of the Rules of Court. |
| DCH Legal Group v Skevington | Western Australia District Court | Yes | [2001] WADC 116 | Australia | Cited for the observation that the description of each bundle must accurately and adequately describe its contents and specify the dates between which the correspondence was produced. |
| Teo Wai Cheong v Credit Industriel et Commercial and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 573 | Singapore | Cited regarding a solicitor's duty to supervise the discovery process and the consequences of breaching discovery obligations. |
| Myers v Elman | House of Lords | Yes | [1940] AC 282 | United Kingdom | Cited within Teo Wai Cheong for guidance on a solicitor's duty in the discovery process, including explaining relevance to the client and investigating potential undisclosed documents. |
| Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 1179 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the use of unless orders, particularly that they are a last resort and should be tailored to the prejudice suffered. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 24 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 24 Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 24 Rule 11(1)(c) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 24 Rule 13(1) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Discovery Order
- Supplementary List of Documents
- Enumeration of Documents
- Inspection of Originals
- Unless Order
- Solicitor's Duty
- Rules of Court
- HKSAR
15.2 Keywords
- Discovery
- Documents
- Inspection
- Enumeration
- Rules of Court
- Singapore
- Litigation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Discovery of documents | 90 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Rules of court | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Company Law | 30 |
| Contract Law | 25 |
| Breach of Contract | 25 |
| Bankruptcy | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery