[2013] SGHCR 1

“as after Sum 13/2019 was filed (on 12 March 2019) and shortly before the eDiscovery Order was made on 17 April 2019. The plaintiffs relied on Dirak Asia Pte Ltd and another v Chew Hua Kok and another [2013] SGHCR 1 (“Dirak Asia”) to argue that it was sufficient for the defendant to have practical access to the email ac”

“e of control as to constitute power; the practical ability to obtain those documents is to be seen and assessed in context: Hai Jiao at [46]; Dirak Asia Pte Ltd and another v Chew Hua Kok and another [2013] SGHCR 1 at [35]–[36].”

“ssages exchanged between HHC and Liang, which includes but is not limited to the 30 Dec Message (see generally, Natixis ([29] above) at [35]; Dirak Asia Pte Ltd and another v Chew Hua Kok and another [2013] SGHCR 1 at [35]–[36]). To be clear, I am not saying that the claimant is in control of these other messages becau”

“em (or proprietary) right to the WeChat messages in HHC’s possession. However, subsequent cases have not read the requirement so narrowly. In Dirak Asia Pte Ltd and another v Chew Hua Kok and another [2013] SGHCR 1, the court observed that “a rigid adherence to Lord Diplock’s perceived definition of ‘power’ as an ‘enfo”