Natixis v Lim Oon Kuin: Discovery of Compound Documents & Control Over Third-Party Held Information

In Natixis, Singapore Branch v Lim Oon Kuin, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the 2nd defendant's appeal against an order for specific discovery of "Compound Documents" (email accounts and mobile phones) held by third parties. The court, presided over by S Mohan J, held that the 2nd defendant had the practical ability to access these documents and was obligated to take reasonable steps to obtain them for discovery purposes in Suit No 188 of 2021, which involves claims of deceit, breach of contract, conversion, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court addresses discovery of email accounts and phones held by third parties, focusing on the practical ability to access them.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UT Singapore Services Pte LtdDefendantCorporationNeutralNeutral
Lim Oon KuinDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
Lim Chee MengDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Lim Huey ChingDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
Natixis, Singapore BranchPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
S MohanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lee Yu LunWong & Leow LLC
DarrellWong & Leow LLC
Darius Malachi Lim Wen HongDamodara Ong LLC
Lim Dao Yuan KeithDamodara Ong LLC
Shalini RajasegarAdvocatus Law LLP
Yap Yin SoonAllen & Gledhill LLP
Dorcas Seah Yi HuiAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff, Natixis, had a credit facility agreement with Hin Leong Trading (HLT).
  2. The Lim Family, including the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, were shareholders and directors of HLT and other related companies.
  3. The plaintiff alleged that the Lim Family and their companies engaged in wrongful acts, including unauthorized dealings with pledged cargo and fabricating documents to obtain financing.
  4. The 2nd defendant claimed he did not carry out HLT's day-to-day operations or supervise its employees.
  5. The plaintiff sought specific discovery of the 2nd defendant's email accounts and mobile phones (the "Compound Documents").
  6. The 2nd defendant claimed he had lost access to his email accounts and that his mobile phones were seized by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD).
  7. The Assistant Registrar ordered the 2nd defendant to take steps to obtain and disclose the Compound Documents, including requesting them from the CAD and HLT Liquidators.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Natixis, Singapore Branch v Lim Oon Kuin and others, Suit No 188 of 2021 (Registrar’s Appeal No 100 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 301

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lim Oon Kuin resigned as managing director of HLT and OTPL
HLT Liquidators began managing HLT's affairs
Lim Huey Ching appointed as a director of UTPL and UTSS
Lim Chee Meng lost access to HLT email account after HLT moved office
Lim Chee Meng lost access to Lonestar Hotmail account
Lim Chee Meng resigned as CEO of UTPL and UTSS
2nd defendant filed his defence
HC/S 188/2021 filed
2nd defendant filed list of documents in S 188
Plaintiff's solicitors sent a request for specific discovery to the 2nd defendant
2nd defendant's solicitors responded to the request
HLT and its liquidators agreed to provide limited discovery of HLT's documents
Plaintiff filed a supplemental list of documents
Plaintiff's solicitors requested 2nd defendant to provide discovery
2nd defendant reiterated his position on discovery
Plaintiff's solicitors rejected 2nd defendant's assertions
2nd defendant filed an affidavit confirming he did not have documents in his PCP
Plaintiff's solicitors requested information from 2nd defendant
2nd defendant's solicitors replied, refusing to provide information
Plaintiff filed SUM 878 seeking an order for specific discovery
AR ordered 2nd defendant to take steps to locate, obtain and disclose the Compound Documents
2nd defendant filed RA 100 appealing against the AR's decision
2nd defendant applied for a stay of execution of the AR's order
SUM 1600 was dismissed by the AR
Hearing before S Mohan J
RA 100 was dismissed by S Mohan J
S Mohan J provided full grounds of decision

7. Legal Issues

  1. Discovery of Documents
    • Outcome: The court held that the 2nd defendant had the practical ability to access the Compound Documents and was obligated to take reasonable steps to obtain them for discovery purposes.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Possession, custody or power of documents
      • Reasonable search for documents
      • Access to documents held by third parties
    • Related Cases:
      • [1980] 1 WLR 627
      • [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604
      • [2022] 3 SLR 964
      • [2012] SGHCR 14
      • [2020] 3 SLR 142
      • [2021] EWCA Civ 116
      • [2013] SGHCR 1
      • [2013] 3 SLR 487

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Discovery of Documents

9. Cause of Actions

  • Deceit
  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract
  • Inducement of Breach
  • Conversion
  • Breach of Bailment
  • Wrongful Detention of Goods
  • Unlawful Means Conspiracy
  • Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Oil Trading
  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lonrho Ltd and another v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd and anotherHouse of LordsNo[1980] 1 WLR 627EnglandCited to argue that a document is not within a party's power if he has to take steps to enable him to acquire a right to obtain the documents.
Soh Lup Chee and others v Seow Boon Cheng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 604SingaporeCited for the principle that the court may order further discovery if it has a reasonable suspicion that there are further documents to be discovered.
Saxo Bank A/S v Innopac Holdings LtdHigh CourtYes[2022] 3 SLR 964SingaporeCited for the principle that a party has a duty to take reasonable steps to search for relevant and material documents.
SK Shipping Co Ltd v IOF Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHCR 14SingaporeCited for the principle that a party has a duty to take reasonable steps to search for relevant and material documents.
Hai Jiao 1306 Ltd and others v Yaw Chee SiewHigh CourtYes[2020] 3 SLR 142SingaporeCited for the principle that the duty to search for documents extends to making reasonable efforts to request documents from a third party.
Phones 4U (in administration) v EE Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2021] EWCA Civ 116England and WalesCited for the principle that a party has a duty to take reasonable steps to search for relevant and material documents.
Dirak Asia Pte Ltd and another v Chew Hua Kok and anotherHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHCR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that a party has power over documents held by a third party if they have the practical ability to access or obtain them.
Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 487SingaporeCited to establish that the 2nd defendant had a common law legal right to gain access to the Handphones.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2014 (2020 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Compound Documents
  • Possession, Custody or Power
  • Specific Discovery
  • Reasonable Search
  • HLT Liquidators
  • Commercial Affairs Department
  • Practical Ability
  • Presently Enforceable Legal Right

15.2 Keywords

  • discovery
  • documents
  • email
  • mobile phone
  • third party
  • possession
  • custody
  • power
  • access
  • reasonable search

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Disclosure Obligations90
Evidence80
Civil Litigation70
Business Enterprises30
Company Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Discovery
  • Commercial Litigation