Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP v FENG SHI & 2 Ors
Application for production dismissed: the majority of requests sought private/internal correspondence falling within the prohibition in O 11 r 5(2); claimant failed to show exceptions (special case or known adverse documents) applied; where privilege was asserted claimant did not demonstrate it was plain and obvious that privilege did not apply; claimant also failed to meet Lutfi's threshold to go behind respondent's averments of non-possession for Schedule 2 requests.
- Citation
- [2024] SGHCR 8
- Parties
- Claimant: Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP; First Defendant: Feng Shi; Second Defendant: Alex SK Liu; Third Defendant: Haven Global Network Pte Ltd
- Court
- High Court Registrar
- Jurisdiction
- Singapore
- Judgment Date
- 19 August 2024
- Case Number
- HC/OC 10/2022 ( HC/SUM 475/2024 )
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Claim (oc 10 of 2022) With Summons No 475 of 2024 for Specific Production / Interlocutory Production Application Under Order 11 R 3 ROC 2021; Judgment on Summons
- Outcome
- Application dismissed in its entirety
- Legal Topics
- Production of Documents, Private and Internal Correspondence, Legal Professional Privilege, Litigation Privilege, Known Adverse Documents, Order 11 Rule 5(2) ROC 2021, Specific Production, Materiality Test
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP
Claimant
Feng Shi
First Defendant
Alex SK Liu
Second Defendant
Haven Global Network Pte Ltd
Third Defendant
Procedural Posture
Originating Claim (oc 10 of 2022) With Summons No 475 of 2024 for Specific Production / Interlocutory Production Application Under Order 11 R 3 ROC 2021; Judgment on Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court may order production of private or internal correspondence under O 11 r 5(2) and the scope of its exceptions (special case; known adverse documents)
- 2 Sufficiency of averments on affidavit asserting legal privilege in light of Lutfi (plain and obvious standard)
- 3 Whether requested documents are in respondent’s possession or control
Ratio Decidendi
Application for production dismissed: the majority of requests sought private/internal correspondence falling within the prohibition in O 11 r 5(2); claimant failed to show exceptions (special case or known adverse documents) applied; where privilege was asserted claimant did not demonstrate it was plain and obvious that privilege did not apply; claimant also failed to meet Lutfi's threshold to go behind respondent's averments of non-possession for Schedule 2 requests.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed in its entirety
Orders
- Application for production of Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 Documents is dismissed
- Parties to be heard on costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment