Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co. Ltd v Win Win Nu and Another

[1] The parties in this action are involved in legal proceedings in Singapore and in Myanmar.

[2] The proceedings arose out of a joint venture between the first defendant and Myanmar Foodstuff Industries ("MFI"), an organization under the control of the government of Myanmar, and the establishment of a joint venture company, the plaintiff. The company started off well, but disagreements between joint venture parties eventually led to the winding up of the company.

[3] The second defendant commenced arbitration proceedings against the government of Myanmar under the Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between member governments of the Association of South East Asian Nations on the ground that the government wrongfully expropriated its investment in the plaintiff company.

[4] Subsequent to the filing of these proceedings, actions were filed against the first defendant in Myanmar, one by the liquidators of the company and one by MFI. In addition to that, the present action was filed in Singapore in the name of the company.

[5] The defendants applied to strike out the action on the ground that it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or is an abuse of the process of court. They sought in the alternative to have the action stayed pending the determination of the arbitration proceedings. The first defendant deposed affidavits in support of the application where she referred to the arbitration proceedings and exhibited documents in those proceedings. The plaintiff objected to the disclosures and applied to strike them out. After hearing counsel, an assistant registrar made the orders the plaintiff sought, and the defendants appealed against the orders.

[6] The plaintiff’s application was made on the basis that the disclosures are irrelevant, scandalous, oppressive and inadmissible, that they are intended to abuse or prejudice the plaintiffs, that they are unduly prolific, that they are intended as a contemptuous, defamatory and collateral attack on the organs of the government of Myanmar and are in breach of the rule of comity of nations.

[7] When the matter came before the assistant registrar, the issues had narrowed. The assistant registrar noted that

(The two cases are referred to in paras 12-15).

[8] On appeal before me, the issues were refined further to whether parties in arbitration proceedings have a duty to maintain confidentiality of the documents in those proceeding, and whether leave of court was necessary for a party to disclose such documents and if so, if it could be given retrospectively.

[9] The general position is set out in Russell on Arbitration (22 edn) which states at para 5-197

and at para 5-200 that

[10] The duty of confidentiality was discussed in Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1990] 1 WLR 1205 where Parker LJ stated at p 1213

[11] This implied obligation, because it is implied, should reflect the needs and expectations of the parties.

[12] In Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v Mew [1993] 2 Ll LR 243 Colman J held that it was not a breach of the duty of confidence for an arbitrating party to make disclosure of an arbitration award including its reasons if it is reasonably necessary for the party to do so to establish or protect its legal rights against a third party, but the judge drew the line against the disclosure of the "raw materials" for the determination such the notes of evidence, witness statements, outline submissions and pleadings.

[13] In regard to the award and the reasons, Colman J held at pp 247-8

[14] The Court of Appeal in Ali Shipping Corporation v Shipyard Trogir [1999] 1 WLR 314 adopted a broader stance. Potter LJ in delivering the judgment of the Court, referred to Hassneh and stated at p 326 "I consider that the implied term ought properly to be regarded as attaching as a matter of law." and observed that

Although to date this exception has been held applicable only to disclosure of an award, it is clear, and indeed the parties do not dispute, that the principle covers also pleadings, written submissions, and the proofs of witnesses as well as transcripts and notes of the evidence given in the arbitration.

[15] He went on to state at pp 326-7 that disclosure is permissible with the

[16] The Australian High Court does not find that a duty of confidence is implied and imposed on the parties. In Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman [1995] 128 ALR 391 @ 401 Mason CJ declined to follow Dolling-Baker and Hassneh, because

[17] The first issue that is to be resolved is whether there is an implied duty of confidentiality. I prefer the English position over the Australian. Parties who opt for arbitration rather than litigation are likely to be aware of and be influenced by the fact that the former are private hearings while the latter are open hearings. Rather than to say that there is nothing inherently confidential in the arbitration process, it is more in keeping with the parties’ expectations to take the position that the proceedings are confidential, and that disclosures can be made in the accepted circumstances.

[18] The next question is whether a party which contends that the disclosure of the arbitration proceedings is necessary has to obtain the leave of court before making the disclosure.

[19] I do not think it is. The reasonable necessity exception is grounded on the implied agreement that when it is reasonably necessary to disclose the duty of confidentiality is lifted. If the duty does not apply leave of court is not required for disclosure.

[20] Of course it is not for that party alone to decide whether the disclosure is reasonably necessary. If another party disputes the necessity, it can apply to expunge the disclosure and the court will then determine if it is reasonably necessary, and make an order to expunge if it is not.

[21] The assistant registrar held that prior leave was necessary. She also found that the defendants had not offered any reasons for her to grant retrospective leave. As I have stated I do not think that leave, prior or retrospective, is necessary, but any disclosure may be expunged if it is found not to be reasonably necessary.

[22] The defendants assert that disclosure is necessary to establish that the Singapore action is vexatious, oppressive and an abuse of the process of court. They alleged that the same allegations of wrongdoing have been made against the first defendant in two pending actions before the courts of Myanmar where she is the defendant, as well as the arbitration proceedings. They have applied to stay the action pending the completion of the arbitration proceedings on that basis.

[23] At that time when that application was filed, the disclosure of the arbitration pleadings and documents was justified because the disclosure was necessary to support the contention that the action is vexatious and an abuse of court. Indeed it would be difficult for the issue to be determined without the disclosure. The assistant registrar should have ruled that the disclosure was reasonably necessary.

[24] However between the time of her decision and the appeal coming on before me the position changed. The arbitration tribunal has held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. By that decision, the arbitration proceedings were brought to an end. Any assertion of oppression or duplicity in the actions must be confined to the two court actions in Myanmar. If the arbitration proceedings were part of the oppression they have ceased to be that, and the disclosure is no longer necessary.