Cachet Multi Strategy Fund v Feng Shi: Production of Documents & Legal Privilege
Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC, on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP, initiated a claim against Feng Shi, Alex SK Liu, and Haven Global Network Pte Ltd, seeking damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy. The case revolves around alleged misrepresentations made by Mr. Shi to induce Cachet's investment in Haven. Mr. Liu objected to the production of certain documents, citing legal privilege and internal correspondence. The General Division of the High Court, presided over by AR Elton Tan Xue Yang, dismissed Cachet's application for production of documents, addressing the scope of legal privilege and the rule against ordering production of private or internal correspondence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for production of documents. Court dismisses the application, addressing legal privilege and internal correspondence rules.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP | Claimant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Alex SK Liu | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | |
| Feng Shi | Defendant | Individual | Judgment entered against | Lost | |
| Haven Global Network Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment entered against | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Elton Tan Xue Yang | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ho Yi Jie | WongPartnership LLP |
| Samantha Ong | WNLEX LLC |
4. Facts
- Cachet claimed Mr. Shi made false representations to induce investment in Haven.
- Cachet sought production of documents from Mr. Liu related to the case.
- Mr. Liu objected to producing documents based on legal privilege and internal correspondence.
- Cachet argued the documents were material and not protected by privilege.
- The court considered the principles of specific production under the Rules of Court 2021.
- The court considered the principles of legal privilege and internal correspondence.
- The court dismissed Cachet's application for production of documents.
5. Formal Citations
- Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP v Feng Shi and others, Originating Claim No 10 of 2022 (Summons No 475 of 2024), [2024] SGHCR 8
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Subscription Agreement signed | |
| Investment Sum paid to Haven | |
| Cachet rescinded the Subscription Agreement and demanded return of Investment Sum | |
| Board meeting of Haven | |
| SIAC Arbitration No. 283 of 2019 commenced against Haven | |
| Enforcement proceedings commenced in California | |
| Interim Award released | |
| Proceedings commenced in Hong Kong to enforce the Interim Award against Haven | |
| Hong Kong Court granted leave to enforce the Interim Award | |
| Cachet successfully obtained recovery of the Investment Sum | |
| Judgment by the Superior Court of California against Mr Shi | |
| Final Award dated | |
| Originating Claim No. 10 of 2022 filed | |
| Judgment entered against Haven | |
| Judgment entered against Mr Shi | |
| Haven was struck off | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Production of Documents
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for production of documents.
- Category: Procedural
- Legal Privilege
- Outcome: The court addressed the sufficiency of averments on legal privilege on affidavit in an application for specific production.
- Category: Substantive
- Internal Correspondence
- Outcome: The court addressed the proscription on ordering production of private or internal correspondence.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for conspiracy
- Damages for fraudulent misrepresentation
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eng’s Wantan Noodle Pte Ltd and another v Eng’s Char Siew Wantan Mee Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHCR 17 | Singapore | Cited for the principles on specific production of documents, particularly regarding the identification of requested documents and the threshold of materiality. |
| Lutfi Salim bin Talib and another v British and Malayan Trustees Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 85 | Singapore | Cited for the principles on challenging an application for specific production, including grounds of objection and the court's power to order an affidavit. |
| Dai Yi Ting v Chuang Fu Yuan (Grabcycle (SG) Pte Ltd and another, third parties) | High Court | Yes | [2023] 3 SLR 1574 | Singapore | Cited for the constitutional principles governing the exercise of the court's powers in an application for specific production. |
| Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 69 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between direct and indirect relevance in the context of applications for specific discovery under the ROC 2014. |
| Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 465 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of a demonstrable nexus between the documents sought and the pleaded cases of the parties. |
| The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 98 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between the court's jurisdiction to grant an order for specific discovery and its discretion to decide whether or not to grant the order. |
| EQ Capital Investments Ltd v Sunbreeze Group Investments Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHCR 15 | Singapore | Cited for the caution against framing a request so broadly as to include documents that are not the proper subject of specific production. |
| ARX v Comptroller of Income Tax | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 590 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is for the party asserting privilege to demonstrate that the preconditions for privilege to subsist are present. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd and others | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 391 | Singapore | Cited for the consideration of whether the absence of a supporting affidavit by the defendants who were asserting legal privilege prevented their invocation of privilege. |
| Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice) | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2006] SCC 39 | Canada | Cited for the argument that litigation privilege would have expired at the time the Haven Arbitration ended on 26 November 2021. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 367 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for establishing litigation privilege, including the reasonable prospect of litigation and the dominant purpose of litigation. |
| CZD v CZE | Unknown | Yes | [2023] 5 SLR 806 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the term 'special case' with the Ideals set out in O 3 r 1 in mind. |
| Wang Piao v Lee Wee Ching | Unknown | Yes | [2024] 4 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the term 'special case' having regard to any relevant accompanying or related rules in the ROC 2021. |
| Lim Julian Frederick Yu v Lim Peng On (as executor and trustee of the estate of Lim Koon Yew (alias Lim Kuen Yew), deceased) and another | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 53 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the term 'special case'. |
| Grab Rentals Pte Ltd v Khoo Long Hui | Magistrate Court | Yes | [2023] SGMC 46 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the term 'special case'. |
| Wee Eng Siang v Muhammad Sholihin Bin Roslan | Magistrate Court | Yes | [2023] SGMC 83 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the term 'special case'. |
| Comptroller of Income Tax v ARW and another | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 16 | Singapore | Cited for the question of whether litigation privilege expires, and if so when it should be considered to have expired. |
| Soh Lup Chee and others v Seow Boon Cheng and another | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 604 | Singapore | Cited for the position under the ROC 2014 was that an affidavit in respect of the discovery of documents was not conclusive if there was a “reasonable suspicion” that further discoverable documents existed. |
| Natixis, Singapore Branch v Lim Oon Kuin and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 301 | Singapore | Cited for the position under the ROC 2014 was that an affidavit in respect of the discovery of documents was not conclusive if there was a “reasonable suspicion” that further discoverable documents existed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 11 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2021 | Singapore |
| Order 11 Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 | Singapore |
| Order 11 Rule 5(1) | Singapore |
| Order 11 Rule 6 | Singapore |
| Order 11 Rule 1(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Order 11 Rule 2(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Order 11 Rule 2(2) | Singapore |
| Order 11 Rule 1(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Order 3 Rule 1(1) | Singapore |
| Order 3 Rule 5(6) | Singapore |
| Order 9 Rule 14(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Production of documents
- Legal privilege
- Internal correspondence
- Materiality
- Possession or control
- Special case
- Known adverse documents
15.2 Keywords
- Production
- Documents
- Privilege
- Internal
- Correspondence
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Evidence Law | 80 |
| Litigation | 70 |
| Civil Practice | 60 |
| Commercial Disputes | 50 |
| Misrepresentation | 40 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 40 |
| Arbitration | 30 |
| Breach of Contract | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Evidence