B2C2 LTD v QUOINE PTE. LTD. [2018] SGHC(I) 4 (20 March 2018)

B2C2 LTD v QUOINE PTE. LTD. [2018] SGHC(I) 4 (20 March 2018)

The court held that while the documents sought by the defendant are relevant and material, the plaintiff's confidentiality concerns do not justify complete refusal of disclosure. Instead, a controlled disclosure regime is appropriate, balancing the need for a fair trial with protection of confidential information. The appointment of a single court expert was refused; instead, the plaintiff is to adduce evidence from an independent expert, with procedures for redacted and unredacted reports and undertakings to protect confidentiality.

Citation
[2018] SGHC(I) 4
Parties
Plaintiff: B2C2 Ltd; Defendant: Quoine Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
20 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory Applications (production of Documents and Appointment of Expert)
Outcome
Applications allowed in part
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Confidentiality in Litigation, Appointment of Court Expert, Algorithmic Trading, Unilateral Mistake
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Discovery of Documents Confidentiality in Litigation Appointment of Court Expert Algorithmic Trading Unilateral Mistake

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B2C2 Ltd

Plaintiff

Quoine Pte Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory Applications (production of Documents and Appointment of Expert)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents relating to the plaintiff's automated trading system should be produced given claims of confidentiality
  2. 2 Whether a single court expert should be appointed to address technical issues regarding the trading system

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the documents sought by the defendant are relevant and material, the plaintiff's confidentiality concerns do not justify complete refusal of disclosure. Instead, a controlled disclosure regime is appropriate, balancing the need for a fair trial with protection of confidential information. The appointment of a single court expert was refused; instead, the plaintiff is to adduce evidence from an independent expert, with procedures for redacted and unredacted reports and undertakings to protect confidentiality.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed in part

Orders

  • Plaintiff to prepare a supplementary list of documents for categories 1-3, indicating claims of confidentiality; documents not to be inspected by defendant without court order.
  • Plaintiff to adduce evidence from a single independent expert (not a court-appointed expert) on specified issues; procedures for redacted and unredacted reports and confidentiality undertakings imposed.