X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd v Metech International Ltd: Striking Out Scandalous Affidavit Evidence in Judicial Management Application
In the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Goh Yihan JC heard an application by Metech International Limited to expunge five categories of documents from an affidavit filed by X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd in support of its application for judicial management. The court allowed Metech's application to expunge the documents, finding them irrelevant to the issues in the judicial management application and, in some cases, inadmissible as hearsay evidence or confidential information. The court denied Metech's application for an injunction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Metech International Limited’s application to expunge documents allowed; application for injunction denied.
1.3 Case Type
Insolvency
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court expunged scandalous, irrelevant, and oppressive documents from an affidavit in a judicial management application, finding them irrelevant and inadmissible.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Application to expunge documents allowed | Lost | Low Chai Chong, Zhulkarnain bin Abdul Rahim, Sean Chen Siang En, Cheong Wei Wen John, Shermaine Lim Jia Qi |
| Metech International Limited | Non-party | Corporation | Application to expunge documents allowed, Application for injunction denied | Won, Lost | Yam Wern-Jhien, Bethel Chan Ruiyi, Lee Jin Loong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Low Chai Chong | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Zhulkarnain bin Abdul Rahim | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Sean Chen Siang En | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Cheong Wei Wen John | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Shermaine Lim Jia Qi | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Yam Wern-Jhien | Setia Law LLC |
| Bethel Chan Ruiyi | Setia Law LLC |
| Lee Jin Loong | Setia Law LLC |
4. Facts
- X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd (XDC) applied to be placed under judicial management.
- Metech International Limited, a creditor of XDC, objected to the application.
- Metech applied to expunge five categories of documents from an affidavit filed by XDC.
- XDC argued the documents were relevant to determining if Metech's nominated judicial manager should be appointed.
- The documents included a Business Times article, an announcement by Nutryfarm International Limited, a WeChat exchange, a "poison pen email," and draft minutes of a meeting.
- The court found the documents irrelevant to the issues in the judicial management application.
5. Formal Citations
- Re X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 148 of 2023 (Summons No 1990 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 201
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Deng Yiming’s 3rd Affidavit (the “3DA”) filed | |
| Metech set out its grounds of objection in Ms Hua’s 1st Affidavit (the “1HA”) | |
| XDC filed the 3DA in response to the 1HA | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the Email was inadmissible hearsay evidence and the RC Minutes contained Metech’s confidential information.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Hearsay evidence
- Confidential information
- Relevance of Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the documents were irrelevant to the issues in the judicial management application.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to expunge documents from affidavit
- Injunction to restrain use of confidential information
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Insolvency
- Corporate Restructuring
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cunningham v Takapuna Tramway & Ferry Co Ltd | New Zealand Supreme Court | Yes | [1920] NZLR 137 | New Zealand | Distinguished because the court was referring to the ambit of its inherent power to expunge such matter in the absence of a written rule providing for the same. |
| Wee Teong Boo v Singapore Medical Council (Attorney-General, intervener) | High Court | Yes | [2023] 3 SLR 705 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that oral evidence provided on assertions made outside of court and tendered in court as evidence as to the truth of the contents therein, but the maker of the assertion is not called as a witness, it is inadmissible hearsay evidence. |
| HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Ltd v Lucky Realty Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 885 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicable evidentiary framework will be rules of evidence at common law that are not inconsistent with the EA. |
| Invenpro (M) Sdn Bhd v JCS Automation Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1045 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the RC Minutes possess the necessary quality of confidence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial management
- Expunge
- Affidavit
- Irrelevant
- Hearsay evidence
- Confidential information
- Collateral purpose
15.2 Keywords
- Insolvency
- Judicial Management
- Evidence
- Affidavit
- Singapore
- Striking Out
16. Subjects
- Insolvency
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Insolvency Law
- Civil Procedure