Xing Rong Pte Ltd (Formerly known as Huadi Projects Pte Ltd) v Visionhealthone Corporation Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 26 August 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGCA 30 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Eric Tin Keng Seng, Gooi Chi Duan, Kang Yixian and Jessica Soo (Donaldson & Burkinshaw) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 14 of 2010 |
Date | 26 August 2010 |
Hearing Date | 05 July 2010 |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure |
Year | 2010 |
Citation | [2010] SGCA 30 |
Defendant Counsel | Dinesh Dhillon and Lim Dao Kai (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Published date | 08 October 2010 |
The appellant, Xing Rong Pte Ltd (“Xing Rong”), appealed against the decision of the judge below (“the Judge”), who had struck out its appeal against the decision of the Assistant Registrar (“the AR”) in Summons No 5937 of 2009 where the AR granted the discovery application that the respondent, Visionhealthone Corporation Pte Ltd (“VHO”), had applied for against the Bank of China Ltd (“BOC”), a non–party to the present proceedings (“the Discovery Application”). We allowed the appeal against the Judge’s decision on the striking out order but as we also found that the AR was justified in granting the Discovery Application, we dismissed the appeal against the AR’s decision. We now give the grounds for our decision.
BackgroundThe Discovery Application was made in relation to Suit No 678 of 2009 (“the Suit”). In the Suit, VHO claimed S$2.125 million (“the Sum”) from Xing Rong on the basis of an agreement dated 18 October 2003 (“the Agreement”) with Xing Rong to establish a network of medical facilities in and outside China (“the Joint Venture”). The funds for the Joint Venture were to be provided solely by VHO.
VHO claimed that, between December 2003 and January 2004, it remitted the Sum to Xing Rong’s bank account with BOC (“the Account”). It asserted that it was induced to remit the sum to Xing Rong through the latter’s and/or the latter’s representative’s fraudulent misrepresentations that the Sum was required for the purposes of the Joint Venture
Prior to March 2007, Xing Rong represented that, in or around 2004, it had in turn remitted the Sum to a third-party Chinese company, Fuzhou Huadi Hebang Construction Renovation Engineering Company Ltd (“FHH”) for the purposes of the Joint Venture. However, the FHH financial records obtained by VHO did not reflect the receipt of the sum by FHH.
Xing Rong, while admitting that it had received the Sum, alleged that the Sum was received pursuant to a currency exchange transaction with VHO and not pursuant to any joint venture.
In the Suit, VHO sought,
In view of Xing Rong’s claim that it did not have the bank statements in question, VHO sought the production of documents from BOC relating to and/or evidencing the movements of the Sum, or any part thereof, into and out of the Account.
At the hearing of the Discovery Application against BOC, BOC left it to the court to decide whether it should produce the required documents. However, Xing Rong, which had been served with the papers relating to the Discovery Application, opposed the said application. After hearing the parties, the AR granted VHO’s application and ordered that it be allowed to inspect and take copies of certain documents in BOC’s possession (“the Discovery Order”). The discovery ordered related to the following documents (“the Ordered Documents”):
All bank statements, cheques, remittance slips, receipts, transfer instructions and correspondence relating to and/or evidencing the movements of the sum of S$2,125,000.00, which was deposited into account no. 012XXXXXXXX (the “
Account ”) of Xing Rong Pte Ltd (formerly known as Huadi Projects Pte Ltd) with Bank of China Limited by way of:
into and out of the Account.
BOC, which was the party subject to the Discovery Order, did not appeal against the Discovery Order within the relevant time frame (
On 4 December 2009, VHO applied, by way of Summons No 6230 of 2009, to strike out the Registrar’s Appeal (“the Striking Out Application”) on the ground that Xing Rong had no
On 11 January 2010, the Judge, on hearing the Striking Out Application, accepted VHO’s contention and struck out Xing Rong’s appeal.
On 9 February 2010, Xing Rong filed an appeal against the Judge’s decision.
The Judge’s Decision The Judge allowed the Striking Out Application on three grounds:
The issues in the appeal before this court were:
The relevant part of O 24 r 6 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Rules”) concerning discovery of documents provides that:
…
After considering the relevant sections of O 24 r 6 of the Rules, the Judge set out, at [19] of his Grounds of Decision (“the GD”), the requirements that needed to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Visionhealthone Corp Pte Ltd v HD Holdings Pte Ltd and others and another appeal
...necessary for the disposal of the Suit (see Xing Rong Pte Ltd (formerly known as Huadi Projects Pte Ltd) v Visionhealthone Corp Pte Ltd [2010] 4 SLR 607 at [31]–[33]). As a result, VH1 obtained from BOC documents evidencing the inflow and gradual outflow of the Sum from the HPPL Account. Th......
-
Civil Procedure
...in the main suit may be affected by an order concerning discovery. Therefore, in Xing Rong Pte Ltd v Visionhealthone Corp Pte Ltd [2010] 4 SLR 607, the respondent had sought discovery pursuant to O 24 r 6(2) of the Rules of Court against the respondent“s bank in order to obtain information ......