Judgment Header
Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2007] SGHC 69
Loading…
[2007] SGHC 69
General Division of the High Court of Singapore9 May 2007Suit 424/2003, SUM 1923/2007
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 8 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“(c) The “relevance” of a document must be determined by reference to the pleaded cases of the parties (see the decision of the Singapore High Court in Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2007] SGHC 69 (“Dante Yap Go”) at [20]) and can take one of two forms:”
“It was held in Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstaff AG [2007] SGHC 69 (“Dante Yap”) at [28] that a party seeking documents on the basis that it is directly relevant has to demonstrate a nexus between the pleaded causes of action and the documents they wish to discover.”
“the principles established in Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and other applications [2004] 4 SLR(R) 39, Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2007] SGHC 69, The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Another [2”
“Town Club Pte Ltd [2002] 2 SLR(R) 465 at [18]), and there must be a demonstrable nexus between the requested documents and at least one of the issues (see Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2007] SGHC 69 at [20]).”
“parties “seeking discovery must show a nexus between the pleaded causes of action and the documents they want discovered” (see the High Court decision of Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2007] SGHC 69 (“Dante Yap Go”) at [28]). If discovery is sought in relation to an issue unrelated to the pleaded causes”
“” are identified by reference to the pleadings (see UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others [2006] 4 SLR(R) 95 at [71]; Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2007] SGHC 69 at [28] and [31]). However, it is important to note that the cases in which this approach has been taken”
“st in the context of applications for specific discovery was that of relevance, which could take one of two forms: direct relevance or indirect relevance: Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2007] SGHC 69 (“Dante Yap Go”) at [18]–[31]. A document would be directly relevant if it is one on which the party reli”
“ich is meant to level the playing field between the parties and ensure that the court can base its decisions on a firm foundation of fact (see, generally, Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2007] SGHC 69 at [16]; DFD v DFE and another [2024] SGHCR 4 (“DFD”) at [29]). Put another way, the production of docume”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2007] SGHC 69
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit 424/2003, SUM 1923/2007
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2007-05-09
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.