Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd v FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd and Others and Another Suit

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 25 August 2003
• Date: 25 August 2003
• Docket Number: Suits Nos 609 and 604 of 2002 (Registrar's
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

FE Global Electronics Pte Ltd and others and another suit

Defendant

[2003] SGHC 185

Choo Han Teck J

Suits Nos 609 and 604 of 2002 (Registrar's Appeal No 281 of 2003)

High Court

Civil Procedure–Discovery of documents–Specific discovery–Interest in fair disposal of matter–Whether reciprocal order for discovery of internal e-mail should be made–Civil Procedure–Discovery of documents–Specific discovery–Whether discovery of class of documents should be allowed–Whether documents relevant to proceedings–Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 24 r 5–Civil Procedure–Pleadings–Amendments–Whether court should consider matters deleted by amendment

The third defendants and the plaintiffs were involved in a dispute over the patent rights of a product known as a “thumb drive”. In its Re-amended Defence and Counterclaim, the third defendants averred that they had met the plaintiffs several times and that correspondence was exchanged primarily by e-mail. The plaintiffs then applied for specific discovery of all internal e-mail within the third defendants' organisation.

The plaintiffs argued that e-mail was the main mode of communication among the officers of the third defendants, and that if these officers had sent correspondence to the plaintiffs by e-mail, they would undoubtedly have done so among themselves. They further argued that a visit by the plaintiffs' patent agent to the third defendants must have generated much internal discussion via e-mail. The assistant registrar granted the order for discovery of documents between July 2000 and May 2002. The third defendants appealed against this order, submitting that the request for specific discovery arose in respect of matters pleaded in the Defence and Counterclaim. These matters were deleted by the third defendants after the plaintiffs took the position that they were irrelevant.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The court could take cognisance of matters raised in pleadings even though they were subsequently deleted by amendment. The question here was whether discovery ought to be ordered in respect of a specific class of documents arising from matters pleaded: at [4].

(2) Given the highly technical questions of technology and issues of law, the dispute should be conducted evenly and openly. If a class of documents were to be disclosed, a reciprocal order should be made in respect of the other party: at [5].

(3) The appropriate order...