Interactive Digital Finance Ltd v Credit Suisse AG: Production of Documents under Rules of Court 2021
Interactive Digital Finance Ltd and Tiah Thee Kian filed a claim against Credit Suisse AG and Luckin Coffee Inc for losses arising from investments. Credit Suisse AG sought production of documents referred to in the claimants' statement of claim. The Assistant Registrar ordered production, and the claimants appealed. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Assistant Registrar had the power to order production of documents referred to in pleadings under the Rules of Court 2021.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding the court's power to order document production under the Rules of Court 2021. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the order justified.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interactive Digital Finance Ltd | Claimant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ng Ka Luon Eddee, Alcina Lynn Chew Aiping, Lee Pei Hua Rachel, Gitta Priska Adelya |
Tiah Thee Kian | Claimant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ng Ka Luon Eddee, Alcina Lynn Chew Aiping, Lee Pei Hua Rachel, Gitta Priska Adelya |
Credit Suisse AG | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Successful in resisting appeal | Won | Jordan Tan, Lim Yuan Jing |
Luckin Coffee Inc | Defendant | Corporation | Watching brief | Neutral | Chin Yen Bing, Arthur |
3. Judges
Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
---|---|---|
Chua Lee Ming | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
Counsel Name | Organization |
---|---|
Ng Ka Luon Eddee | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
Alcina Lynn Chew Aiping | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
Lee Pei Hua Rachel | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
Gitta Priska Adelya | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
Jordan Tan | Audent Chambers LLC |
Lim Yuan Jing | WongPartnership LLP |
Chin Yen Bing, Arthur | TSMP Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Claimants filed a claim against the defendants for losses arising out of investments.
- Credit Suisse AG served a notice to produce documents on the claimants.
- The Assistant Registrar directed the claimants to produce documents referred to in the statement of claim.
- The claimants appealed against the Assistant Registrar's decision.
- The 1st defendant argued that the documents in requests #20, #28 and #58 were documents that were referred to in the SOC.
- The court found that the AR's decision was justified under the 2021 Rules.
- The court found that the documents sought under requests #20, #28 and #58 were not documents that were referred to in the SOC.
5. Formal Citations
- Interactive Digital Finance Ltd and another v Credit Suisse AG and another, Originating Claim No 225 of 2023 (Registrar’s Appeal No 95 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 198
6. Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
Claim filed by Interactive Digital Finance Limited and Mr Tiah Thee Kian against Credit Suisse AG and Luckin Coffee Inc. | |
Credit Suisse AG filed and served a notice to produce documents on the claimants. | |
Credit Suisse AG sought an extension of time to file its defence. | |
Claimants stated they would not provide documents and did not agree to the extension of time. | |
Claimants' lawyers wrote to the court arguing Credit Suisse AG's request was without legal basis. | |
Assistant Registrar conducted a case conference and directed the claimants to respond to the notice to produce and produce documents. | |
Claimants provided further response to the notice to produce. | |
Claimants produced some documents and stated others were not in their possession or control. | |
Credit Suisse AG noted the claimants' omission and alleged breach of court directions. | |
Claimants explained they had no obligation to produce certain documents. | |
Credit Suisse AG requested the court to direct production of documents. | |
Claimants' lawyers informed the court that the claimants had instructed them to file an appeal. | |
Claimants filed an appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision. | |
Credit Suisse AG informed the Assistant Registrar that it needed documents to file its defence. | |
Hearing date. | |
Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Power of the court to order production of documents referred to in pleadings under the Rules of Court 2021
- Outcome: The court held that the Assistant Registrar had the power to order production of documents referred to in pleadings under the Rules of Court 2021.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2012] SGHCR 14
- Whether the documents in requests #20, #28 and #58 were documents that were referred to in the SOC
- Outcome: The court decided that the documents sought under requests #20, #28 and #58 were not documents that were referred to in the SOC.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2012] SGHCR 14
- Threshold for appellate intervention in procedural matters under Order 18 rule 10 of the Rules of Court 2021
- Outcome: The court agreed that there was no reason to intervene because the claimants had not shown that substantial injustice would otherwise be caused by the AR’s order.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Losses arising out of investments in securities
- Representations made by the defendants
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SK Shipping Co Ltd v IOF Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHCR 14 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the requesting party should be conferred the same advantage as if the documents referred to had been fully set out in the pleadings. |
13. Applicable Rules
Rule Name |
---|
Order 11 of the 2021 Rules |
Order 18 rule 10 of the 2021 Rules |
Order 3 rule 2(2) of the 2021 Rules |
Order 3 rule 1(2) of the 2021 Rules |
Order 9 rule 1 of the 2021 Rules |
Order 9 rr 9(3) and (4)(k) of the 2021 Rules |
Order 2 rr 9(1) and (5) of the 2021 Rules |
Order 9 r 9(7) of the 2021 Rules |
Order 2 r 9(8) of the 2021 Rules |
Order 1 r 2(3)(a) of the 2021 Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
---|---|
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
Rules of Court 2021 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Production of documents
- Rules of Court 2021
- Notice to produce
- Statement of claim
- Case conference
- Appellate intervention
- Substantial injustice
- Order 11
- Order 3
- Single application pending trial
15.2 Keywords
- Production of documents
- Rules of Court
- Civil procedure
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Discovery
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Rules of Court
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Production of documents