Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd v Arulappan Tony: Application for Inspection of Banker's Book
In Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd v Arulappan Tony, the High Court of Singapore granted the applicant, Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd's application for inspection of the respondent, Arulappan Tony's bank statements held with DBS Bank Ltd, a non-party, under section 175(1) of the Evidence Act. The application arose from a dispute over alleged unauthorized transactions by the respondent during his employment with the applicant, leading to potential claims of conversion and unjust enrichment. The court found that the bank statements fell within the definition of 'bankers’ books' and that the application constituted a 'legal proceeding' under the Act, justifying the order for inspection.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court allowed Alliance Divine Impex's application for inspection of Arulappan Tony's bank statements under s 175(1) of the Evidence Act, concerning potential conversion and unjust enrichment claims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Application Allowed | Won | John Jeevan Noel, Ow Joshua |
| Arulappan Tony | Respondent | Individual | Application Granted Against | Lost | |
| DBS Bank Ltd | Non-party | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | Tham Hsu Hsien, Edmond Lim Tian Zhong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| John Jeevan Noel | Pereira & Tan LLC |
| Ow Joshua | Pereira & Tan LLC |
| Tham Hsu Hsien | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Edmond Lim Tian Zhong | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- The applicant sought inspection of the respondent's bank statements with DBS.
- The respondent was a former employee of the applicant.
- The applicant suspected the respondent of unauthorized transactions.
- The applicant alleged potential causes of action for conversion and unjust enrichment.
- The respondent did not comply with a prior court order for pre-action discovery.
- The applicant claimed a shortfall of food products worth $300,000 to $400,000.
5. Formal Citations
- Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd v Arulappan Tony, Originating Application No 679 of 2023 (Summons No 1940 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 227
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent employed by applicant | |
| Respondent left applicant's employ | |
| AFF informed applicant of respondent's alleged conspiracy | |
| Applicant applied for pre-action discovery against respondent | |
| Court granted pre-action discovery | |
| Applicant commenced HC/OA 420/2024 | |
| Applicant filed SUM 1940 | |
| SUM 1940 granted | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Discovery of Documents
- Outcome: The court allowed the application for discovery of the respondent's bank statements.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2023] 5 SLR 656
- [2016] 4 SLR 1392
- Inspection of Banker's Books
- Outcome: The court ordered the inspection of the respondent's bank statements, finding them to fall within the definition of 'banker's books'.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2023] 5 SLR 656
- [2003] 2 SLR(R) 91
- [2022] 5 SLR 602
8. Remedies Sought
- Discovery of Documents
- Inspection of Bank Statements
9. Cause of Actions
- Conversion
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Discovery of Documents
- Inspection of Banker's Books
11. Industries
- Banking
- Food Sales
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa | High Court | Yes | [2023] 5 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the 'Bankers’ Books Exception' and the three-step analysis for its application. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 91 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'bankers’ books' under s 170 of the Evidence Act. |
| La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd v Zhang Lan and others | High Court | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 602 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'bankers’ books' and the requirement for a transactional record. |
| Success Elegant Trading Ltd v La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd and others and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1392 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'legal proceeding' in s 175(1) of the Evidence Act and the need for an independent right to discovery. |
| Ching Mun Fong v Standard Chartered Bank | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 185 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of ordering production of documents before commencement of a substantive action. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 208 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of ordering production of documents before commencement of a substantive action. |
| Gillingham James Ian v Fearless Legends Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHCR 13 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of ordering production of documents before commencement of a substantive action. |
| Bankers Trust Co v Shapira and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1980] 1 WLR 1274 | England and Wales | Cited as the origin of the Bankers Trust order. |
| Goh Seng Heng v Liberty Sky Investments Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1113 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of a Bankers Trust order, including a proprietary claim. |
| Technigroup Far East Pte Ltd and another v Jaswinderpal Singh s/o Bachint Singh and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1391 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevancy of bank documents for inspection. |
| Susilawati v American Express Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 737 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Third Schedule of the Banking Act is exhaustive of situations where banking secrecy may be disregarded. |
| PSA Corp Ltd v Korea Exchange Bank | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 871 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Third Schedule of the Banking Act is exhaustive of situations where banking secrecy may be disregarded. |
| Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 684 | Singapore | Cited for factors to consider when exercising the court's discretion under O 11 r 11(1). |
| Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and others (No 5) | English High Court Chancery Division | Yes | [1992] 2 All ER 911 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a Bankers Trust order requires a real prospect of locating assets to which the claimant is making a proprietary claim. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 Order 11 Rule 11 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 Section 170 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 Section 175(1) | Singapore |
| Banking Act 1970 | Singapore |
| Banking Act 1970 Section 47(1) | Singapore |
| Banking Act 1970 Section 47(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Banker's Books
- Banking Secrecy
- Pre-Action Discovery
- Inspection Order
- Legal Proceeding
- Evidence Act
- Rules of Court
- Conversion
- Unjust Enrichment
15.2 Keywords
- banker's book
- discovery
- evidence act
- banking secrecy
- conversion
- unjust enrichment
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Banking
- Discovery
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Banking Law
- Evidence Law