Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo v Shandong Ruyi: Production of Documents and Peremptory Orders
In Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership (Ltd Partnership) v Shandong Ruyi Technology Group Co Ltd and European Topsoho S.àr.l., the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the second respondent for an unless order to take effect, compelling the claimant's compliance with a production order. The claimant's application for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award was dismissed, and the permission for enforcement was set aside due to the claimant's failure to fully comply with the production order. The court decided in favor of the second respondent, ordering the Unless Order to take effect.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Unless Order take effect; ORC 1189 be set aside and OA 222 be dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court decision on production of documents, ordering claimant's application dismissal for non-compliance with peremptory order.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership (Ltd Partnership) | Claimant | Limited Liability Partnership | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Shandong Ruyi Technology Group Co Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | |||
| European Topsoho S.àr.l. | Respondent | Corporation | Unless Order take effect | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Perry Peh | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The second respondent held shares in SMCP SA.
- The second respondent pledged some of its SCMP shares as security under bonds.
- GLAS SAS (London Branch) took possession of the Pledged Shares in October 2021.
- The Remaining Shares later became the subject of the Arbitration.
- The underlying arbitration agreement is contained in the Guarantee.
- A bankruptcy order was made against the second respondent by the Luxembourg courts in February 2023.
- The Liquidator successfully obtained the Production Order.
5. Formal Citations
- Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership (Ltd Partnership)vShandong Ruyi Technology Group Co Ltd and another, Originating Application No 222 of 2023 (Summons No 643 of 2024), [2024] SGHCR 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Award issued in favour of the claimant | |
| Bankruptcy order made against the second respondent by the Luxembourg courts | |
| Claimant obtained an award | |
| Arbitration commenced against the first and second respondents | |
| Claimant's application in HC/OA 222/2023 for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award | |
| Liquidator’s filing of SUM 346 | |
| Unless Order granted | |
| Claimant filed a second supplementary list of documents | |
| SUM 643 was heard and decided | |
| AR Perry Peh decision date |
7. Legal Issues
- Compliance with Production Order
- Outcome: The court found that the claimant failed to fully comply with the Production Order.
- Category: Procedural
- Breach of Unless Order
- Outcome: The court found that the claimant breached the Unless Order.
- Category: Procedural
- Intentional and Contumelious Breach
- Outcome: The court determined that the claimant's breach of the Unless Order was intentional and contumelious.
- Category: Procedural
- Proportionality of Unless Order
- Outcome: The court held that it was a proportionate consequence for the Unless Order to come into effect.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DFD v DFE and another | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHCR 4 | Singapore | Sets out the background facts leading to these applications in which the Production Order and the Unless Order were obtained. |
| DNG FZE v PayPal Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 65 | Singapore | Provides guidance as to when the court should exercise its discretion to order a striking out where a party fails to comply with its obligations to produce documents. |
| Natixis, Singapore Branch v Lim Oon Kuin and others | High Court | Yes | [2024] 3 SLR 1502 | Singapore | An affidavit verifying a party’s list of documents and any subsequent affidavits filed in response to an order for production are generally regarded as conclusive. |
| Lutfi Salim bin Talib and another v British and Malayan Trustees Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 85 | Singapore | The affidavits relating to the production of documents are conclusive unless it is “plain and obvious” from the documents that have been produced, the producing party’s affidavits or pleadings, or some other objective evidence before the court, that the requested documents must exist or have existed. |
| Btech Engineering Pte Ltd v Novellers Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 171 | Singapore | Affidavits of discovery generally are conclusive as to whether or not the discovery obligation had been breached, and striking out would only be appropriate where the breach is admitted or clear on the face of the documents, affidavits or pleadings put forward by the party in default. |
| Soh Lup Chee and others v Seow Boon Cheng and another | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604 | Singapore | An assertion that further documents exist, apart from what has been already produced, cannot be grounded merely on the basis of an assertion that those further documents ordinarily or presumably would have existed; the requesting party must point to something in the circumstances of the case which specifically grounds its suspicion. |
| Syed Ibrahim Shaik Mohideen v Wavoo Abdusalam Shaul Hameed and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] 4 SLR 903 | Singapore | Reference to O 15 r 7(6) of the ROC 2021; see also Syed Ibrahim Shaik Mohideen v Wavoo Abdusalam Shaul Hameed and others [2023] 4 SLR 903 at [12]–[16]). |
| Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (S) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 1179 | Singapore | Although the court is guided by considerations of proportionality in assessing breaches of “unless” orders, this does not mean that the adverse consequences of an “unless” order would necessarily militate against it coming into effect. |
| Dirak Asia Pte Ltd and another v Chew Hua Kok and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHCR 1 | Singapore | Reference to control of documents. |
| BLC and others v BLB and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 79 | Singapore | The principle of minimal curial intervention flows from the need to encourage finality in the arbitral process as well as the deemed acceptance by the parties to an arbitration of the attendant risks of having only a very limited right of recourse to the courts, which is provided for by the International Arbitration Act in specified circumstances. |
| AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 488 | Singapore | Because of the court’s limited role in arbitral proceedings, the grounds for curial intervention by the court are limited to the statutorily-prescribed grounds in the International Arbitration Act and do not encompass the merits of the award or the substantive correctness of the tribunal’s decision. |
| Aloe Vera of America, Inc v Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 174 | Singapore | The language “but not otherwise” in s 31(1) indicates that the grounds for refusal of enforcement in ss 31(2) and (4) are “meant to be exhaustive and that the court has no residual discretion to refuse enforcement if one of those grounds is not established”. |
| CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 305 | Singapore | No State will permit a binding arbitral award to be enforced within its territory without being able to review the award or without allowing the parties an opportunity to address the court if there has been a violation of due process or other irregularities in the arbitral proceedings. |
| Fermin Aldabe v Standard Chartered Bank | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 194 | Singapore | A party’s obligation to give inspection is to be fulfilled by providing the originals of the documents that are to be inspected, and not their copies. |
| Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and another and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Where electronic documents are concerned, careful evaluation of its original source is needed to verify their authenticity. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Production Order
- Unless Order
- Arbitration
- International Arbitration Act
- Rules of Court 2021
- Remaining Shares
- Pledged Shares
- Guarantee
- Memorandum
- Liquidator
15.2 Keywords
- Production of documents
- Peremptory orders
- Arbitration
- Singapore High Court
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration
- International Arbitration