Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeLee Seiu Kin J
Judgment Date08 April 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] SGHC 87
Citation[2011] SGHC 87
Docket NumberSuit No 222 of 2010 (Registrar’s Appeal No 441 of 2010)
Published date18 April 2011
Hearing Date30 November 2010
Plaintiff CounselJoana Teo (Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
Date08 April 2011
Defendant CounselWilliam Ong and Sylvia Tee (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterCivil Procedure
Lee Seiu Kin J: Introduction

This was an appeal by the plaintiff, Sanae Achar (“Achar”), against the decision of the learned assistant registrar (“AR”) who allowed the application of the defendant, Sci-Gen Ltd (“Sci-Gen”), in Summons No 4406 of 2010 (“Summons 4406/2010”) for specific discovery of documents pursuant to O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“Rules of Court”). After hearing both parties, I dismissed Achar’s appeal. I now set out the reasons for my decision.

Background

Achar was a former employee of Sci-Gen. She commenced Suit No 222 of 2010 (“the Suit”) against Sci-Gen for salary and benefits allegedly owed to her by Sci-Gen under the terms of her employment with Sci-Gen.

Achar’s claim against Sci-Gen is based on her employment contract with Sci-Gen (“the Employment Contract”), which commenced in April 2008 and was due to expire three years later in April 2011. According to Achar, the Employment Contract provided that in the event Sci-Gen terminated her employment by notice prior to the end of her employment period with Sci-Gen (ie April 2011), Sci-Gen was to pay to Achar the balance of her salaries until the end of that employment period. Achar alleged that she was terminated by Sci-Gen with notice on 1 December 2008, less than eight months through her employment contract. Notice for Achar’s termination was allegedly given for and on behalf of Sci-Gen by Saul Mashaal (“Saul”), Sci-Gen’s chairman and chief executive officer at the relevant time. Accordingly, Achar maintained that she was entitled to be compensated for the remaining months up till the end of the Employment Contract in April 2011.

Sci-Gen’s position, however, was that it had not terminated Achar’s employment on 1 December 2008. Rather, the alleged notice of termination and related documents therein had only been given by Saul to Achar after the former’s termination as Sci-Gen’s chairman and chief executive officer on 20 April 2009, and backdated to 1 December 2008. Backdating was done so as to allow Achar to procure the remainder of her employment benefits under the Employment Contract without performance of her duties thereunder. As Sci-Gen believed that Achar had falsely alleged that she had been given the notice of termination, Sci-Gen terminated Achar’s employment pursuant to the Employment Contract on 29 May 2009.

The AR’s decision

In the course of the Suit, Sci-Gen took out an application for discovery of particular documents. The AR heard Sci-Gen’s discovery application on 27 October 2010 and allowed discovery of the following documents: An electronic mail (“email”) from Saul to Achar allegedly dated 1 December 2008 (“the Alleged 1 December Email”). An email from Saul to Achar allegedly dated 15 December 2008 (“the Alleged 15 December Email”). All emails from Saul to Achar received between 1 December 2008 and 29 May 2009, stored on Achar’s computer(s), notebook(s), external hard drive(s), external hard disk(s) or any other external storage device or medium, and/or Achar’s online email account on the domain yahoo.com. All emails from Achar to Saul sent between 1 December 2008 and 29 May 2009, stored on Achar’s computer(s), notebook(s), external hard drive(s), external hard disk(s) or any other external storage device or medium, and/or Achar’s online email account on the domain yahoo.com. All emails which include any of the following search words or phrases or any combination thereof, viz, “Saul”, “Saul Mashaal”, “termination”, “terminate”, “leave”, or “vacation”, stored on Achar’s computer(s), notebook(s), external hard drive(s), external hard disk(s) or any other external storage device or medium, and/or Achar’s online email account on the domain yahoo.com, the duration of discovery being limited to the period between 1 December 2008 and 31 July 2009. The documents in respect of which the AR ordered discovery can be broadly grouped into three categories. The first category, corresponding to items (a) and (b) at [5] above, consisted of emails allegedly terminating Achar’s employment with Sci-Gen (henceforth referred to as “the Category 1 Documents”). The second category, corresponding to items (c) and (d) at [5] above, consisted of email exchanges between Achar and Saul between 1 December 2008 and 29 May 2009 (henceforth referred to as “the Category 2 Documents”). The third and final category, corresponding to item (e) at [5] above, consists of emails sent and received between 1 December 2008 and 31 July 2009, which contain various search words and phrases (henceforth referred to as “the Category 3 Documents”).

The AR further ordered that the documents to be disclosed were to be provided in an electronic, text searchable and structured format. They were to also include the names of the electronic files constituting or containing the relevant electronic documents, as well as the file formats (and their versions) of the said documents. The AR also allowed Sci-Gen to inspect the disclosed documents in their native format. Dissatisfied with the discovery order made by the AR, Achar appealed against the same.

The appeal The law on discovery

A party to a litigation has an obligation to disclose to the opposing party all documents which are, or have been, in his possession, custody or power that are relevant to the issues in dispute. This is the process of discovery and the court may make an order to do so under O 24 r 1 of the Rules of Court. Where the court is of the view that any party has not disclosed any such document, the court may order that party to give discovery thereof. This is known as specific discovery which the court may order under O 24 r 5. To be susceptible to an order for specific discovery, a document must fulfil certain requirements.

First, the document must be relevant (see Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd [2002] 2 SLR(R) 465 (“Tan Chin Seng”) at [18]). In respect of discovery of specific documents, O 24 r 5(3) of the Rules of Court describes a relevant document to be:

(a) a document on which the party relies or will rely;

(b) a document which could - (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party's case; or (iii) support another party's case; and

(c) a document which may lead the party seeking discovery of it to a train of inquiry resulting in his obtaining information which may – (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party's case; or (iii) support another party's case.

Whether a document is one on which the party seeking discovery relies or will rely upon, or one which could adversely affect that party’s case, or adversely affect or support another party’s case would depend on the issues pleaded by the parties in the action.

Second, even if the document is established to be relevant, O 24 r 7 of the Rules of Court further prescribes an overriding principle that discovery is to be ordered only if “necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs”.

In the context of an application for discovery and inspection (including the supply of copies) of electronically stored documents, the Supreme Court Practice Direction No 3 of 2009 (“the e-Discovery PD”) establishes an opt-in framework which parties may adopt (see Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen and others [2010] SGHC 125, which considered the application of the opt-in framework). The e-Discovery PD supplements the traditional tests of relevancy and necessity by articulating a non-exhaustive list of matters which the court will consider while applying these existing legal principles of discovery. These matters are listed at para 43D of the e-Discovery PD and include: the number of electronic documents involved; the nature of the case and complexity of the issues; the value of the claim and the financial position of each party; the ease and expense of retrieval of any particular electronically stored document or class of electronically stored documents, including – the accessibility, location and likelihood of locating any relevant documents, the costs of recovering and giving discovery and inspection of any relevant documents, the likelihood that any relevant documents will be materially altered in the course of recovery, or the giving of discovery or inspection; and the significance of any particular electronically stored document or class of electronically stored documents which are likely to be located to the issues in dispute. The phrase “electronically stored documents” is not defined in the e-Discovery PD. In my view, it is not necessary to define this term as it should be given its natural meaning as used in our modern day context. On this approach, this term will include a wide range of electronic documents, eg, word processor documents, spreadsheets, presentation slides, and image files. Case law has also included within the scope of “documents” electronically stored documents like: Emails – see PSA Corp Ltd v Korea Exchange Bank [2002] 1 SLR(R) 871, Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd v FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2003] 3 SLR(R) 685, K Solutions Pte Ltd v National University of Singapore [2009] 4 SLR(R) 254, and Fermin Aldabe v Standard Chartered Bank [2009]...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 22 Mayo 2013
    ...LR 1753; [2007] EWCA Civ 741 (folld) Robin Duane Littau v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 61 (refd) Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd [2011] 3 SLR 967 (folld) Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 35 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 24 Karen Teo, Adeline Chung and Han Hsien F......
  • Surface Stone Pte Ltd v Tay Seng Leon and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 Octubre 2011
    ...requirements set out in the Rules of Court) once the search has been carried out with the keyword searches; see Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd [2011] SGHC 87 at [23]. It should be evident from the discussion above that there is no fixed method to ensure that the description of discrete documents......
  • Breezeway Overseas Ltd v UBS AG
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 Febrero 2012
    ...results are presumed to be relevant without the need for a further review of each document for relevance: Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd [2011] 3 SLR 967; [2011] SGHC 87, at [23]. Conducting discovery in stages will ameliorate the effects of the proliferation of copies and decentralisation of re......
  • Global Yellow Pages Limited v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd and another suit
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 22 Mayo 2013
    ...copies and feeding the human propensity to hoard soft copies indefinitely. I described this problem in Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd [2011] 3 SLR 967 (“Sanae Achar”) in the following manner: 12 The introduction of the [Supreme Court Practice Direction No 3 of 2009 (“the e-Discovery PD”) in 2009......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2011, December 2011
    • 1 Diciembre 2011
    ...contributed to the fair disposal of the case at that point in time. Discovery of electronic documents 8.32 In Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd[2011] 3 SLR 967 (Sanae Achar), the assistant registrar had granted the defendant specific discovery of various categories of e-mail messages involving the ......
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 Diciembre 2014
    ...the promotion of the exchange of electronically stored documents in a text searchable electronic form: see Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd[2011] 3 SLR 967 at [11]. As for the prejudice that would be suffered by the fifth defendant in wartsila, this could be compensated for by the appropriate orde......
  • Building and Construction Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 Diciembre 2012
    ...on whether e-discovery would be ordered is the issue of cost. The court had cited an earlier decision of Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd[2011] 3 SLR 967 wherein the judge in that case observed (at [14]) that: At the same time, the e-Discovery PD also acknowledges that the costs of e-discovery cou......
  • WEATHERING THE EVOLVING LANDSCAPES OF ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2017, December 2017
    • 1 Diciembre 2017
    ...“Behind the Great Firewall of eDiscovery in Asia” (2014) 32 Association of Corporate Counsel 26 at 28. 136Sanae Achar v Sci-Gen Ltd[2011] 3 SLR 967. 137Breezeway Overseas Ltd v UBS AG[2012] 4 SLR 1035 at [24]. 138Robin Duane Littau v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd[2011] SGHC 61. 139Global Y......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT