Case Update: Dirak Asia Pte Ltd v Chew Hue Kok & Another [2013] SGHCR 01
This case is interesting because it brings attention to the new challenges faced by litigation and electronic discovery practitioners, in a world where outsourced email hosting and cloud technologies have become commonplace in everyday life and at the workplace.
Electronic Discovery: An Evolution of Law & Practice
Co-authored by Yeong Zee Kin and Serena Lim
Electronic Discovery: An Evolution of Law and Practice is one of the papers published in the "International Conference on Electronic Litigation" ("Conference Publication"). The paper was jointly co-authored by Senior Assistant Registrar at the Supreme Court, Yeong Zee Kin and Serena Lim, with contributions from Brad Mixner (both from Litigation Edge).
It has been reproduced in our reading list with the kind permission of the Publisher, Academy Publishing.
The paper discusses the recent development in the law and practice relating to electronic discovery in Singapore, and, refers to parallel developments and lessons drawn from the UK and USA experience.
International Conference on Electronic Litigation is available for purchase as an e-book at Amazon Kindle Edition
CLICK HERE to download the extract
CASE UPDATE: Ching Mun Fong v Standard Chartered Bank [2012] SGCA 38
The Court of Appeal noted that pre-action discovery must meet the test of necessity. In this case, the Court of Appeal held that the voice-logs were not necessary for the customer to institute her claim as she was well aware of the cause of action. The Court further held that the application for pre-action discovery was more of a fishing expedition, particularly since the customer, being a participant in the communications, would have at least a basic idea of the contents of the voice-logs.
[Read More... ]
CASE UPDATE: Breezeway Overseas Ltd and another v UBS AG and others [2012] SGHC170
Commentary: Earlier cases seemed to indicate that the party giving discovery should not need to conduct a post-search review to exclude irrelevant documents. Para 43D (3) and Appendix E, Part 2 of the eDiscovery PD also indicates this default position.
This case clarifies that the eDiscovery PD is not intended to prevent the party giving discovery from undertaking a post court-sanctioned review to remove documents that are irrelevant to the issues in dispute. We welcome this decision as most practitioners have expressed discomfort with the default position in the eDiscovery PD.
The Supreme Court Practice Directions Amendment No 1 of 2012
A commentary by Yeong Zee Kin and Shaun Leong.
This article reviews Practice Directions 3 of 2009, which provides guidance for the conduct of discovery and inspection of electronically stored documents.
To Read Article, CLICK HERE
"Developments in Law of Discovery of Electronic Documents"
By Tan Hee Joek
This article summarises the guiding principles from the four High Court decisions on the law of discovery of electronic documents in Singapore.
To Read Article, CLICK HERE
Modifications to PD3 - Supreme Court Practice Directions No.1 of 2012
The Court has recently issued several significant and extensive amendments to PD3of 2009, pursuant to Supreme Court Practice Directions Amendment No 1 of 2012.
While the modifications are significant and fairly extensive, possibly leaving the Bar to lament how the goal posts have moved yet again, these new amendments should be warmly received by those already familiar with PD3, for its codification of:
1. When to raise PD3 - Specific scenarios and more meaningful test of proportionality and economy;
2. More user friendly, better organized and less confusing nomenclature;
3. More comprehensive Sample E-Discovery Plan;
4. New Checklist of E-discovery Issues - to assist collaboration at general discovery;
5. Exchange of Electronic Copies - applicable even in non e-discovery cases.
For a full commentary on the PD3 Modifications - download to read:
A Commentary on the PD3 Modifications
CASE UPDATE: Surface Stone Pte Ltd v Tay Seng Leon and Another [2011] SGHC 223
This case is interesting for the following reasons:
1. This is the first reported case on the discovery of a hard drive; and the High Court set out the factors to be considered when ordering discovery and inspection of "compound documents", that is, content within hard disk drives or other storage devices that is comprised of several distinct and individual documents.
2. PD3 of 2009 was ordered even though neither of the parties had initiated PD3 of 2009.
"Review of Discovery in Civil Litigation"
Consultation Paper by Rules of Court Working Party, October 2011
On 19 October 2011, the Supreme Court of Singapore released a public consultation paper entitled “Review of Discovery in Civil Litigation” (the “consultation paper”). The review seeks feedback on various proposals by the Rules of Court Working Party (the “ROCWP”) to address concerns regarding time, costs and procedure employed in the discovery process, and in particular, the test to be applied in determining the scope of electronic discovery.
CLICK HERE to read the Consultation Paper
The Consultation Team at Litigation Edge submitted a response to the Consultation Paper to share our insights gained from on-the-ground experience of working with trial lawyers on a range of litigation matters. We proposed the adoption of a holistic approach that would encourage the development of a flourishing electronic discovery culture and widespread adoption of electronic discovery processes.
CLICK HERE to read our submission in response to the Consultation Paper
For a summary of the salient points in the Consultation Paper and our Response - read our BLOG
CASE UPDATE: Sanae Achar v SCI-GEN Ltd [2011] SGHC 87
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Sanae Achar against the decision of the learned assistant registrar who allowed the application of the defendant, Sci-Gen Ltd, in Summons No 4406 of 2010 for specific discovery of documents pursuant to Order 24 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) heard before Justice Lee Seiu Kin in the High Court. A Case Summary & Commentary will be published here shortly.
CLICK HERE to read the case
CASE UPDATE: Robin Duane Littau v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 61
This is an application under Part IVA of the Supreme Court Practice directions for the discovery and inspection of electronically stored documents ("Part IVA") for the court to determine the keywords which are to be used to conduct a reasonable search for discoverable documents following the execution of an Anton Piller Order. A Case Summary & Commentary will be published here shortly.
CLICK HERE to read the case
CASE UPDATE: Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen [2010] SGHC 125
Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen and others [2010] SGHC 125 ("Deustsche Bank Case") is the first case on PD3 of 2009. The decision is by Yeong Zee Kin, SAR, who had very kindly joined us at our “Essential E-Discovery Course” in February 2010.
1. This case clarifies important aspects of PD3; including the unusual “opt-in” feature and how practitioners should respond to e-discovery requests even if they do not wish to initiate PD3 themselves.
2. The case also illustrates the use of PD3 in a relatively commonplace dispute scenario of bank customer suing / counter-suing the bank
Would you like to receive regular e-discovery case law updates, discussion papers and resources by email?
This is a free subscription service from Litigation Edge - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to subscribe to our E-Discovery Alert Service.