Case Details
- Title: Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd v Deng Yiming
- Citation: [2023] SGHC 227
- Other Citation(s): [2023] SGHC 260
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Originating Claim No: Originating Claim No 161 of 2023
- Summons No: Summons No 1991 of 2023
- Date of Judgment: 14 September 2023
- Date Judgment Reserved: 10 August 2023
- Judge: Hri Kumar Nair J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd (“AET”)
- Defendant/Respondent: Deng Yiming (“Deng”)
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Striking out / expunging affidavits and pleadings
- Procedural Context: Application to strike out or expunge “offending materials” and to oppose AET’s summary judgment application
- Related Earlier Decision: Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd v Deng Yiming [2023] SGHC 227 (“SUM 1488 Grounds”)
- Statutes Referenced: Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (“IRDA”)
- Rules of Court Referenced: Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”) — O 9 r 16(1) and O 9 r 16(4); O 15 r 25
- Other Rules Mentioned: Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Corporate Insolvency and Restructuring) Rules 2020 (“CIR Rules”) — r 21 (not applicable on the facts)
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2022] SGHC 309; [2022] SGMC 53; [2023] SGHC 201; [2023] SGHC 227; [2023] SGHC 255; [2023] SGHC 260
- Judgment Length: 21 pages, 5,248 words
Summary
Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd v Deng Yiming concerned a procedural application in the High Court arising from a substantive dispute over alleged wrongful conversion, detention and/or misappropriation of diamonds. In HC/SUM 1991/2023, AET sought to strike out or expunge various pleadings, affidavits, exhibits and written submissions filed by Deng in support of his defence, and to oppose AET’s summary judgment application. The “offending materials” were said to contain irrelevant, scandalous, and collateral allegations, including allegations about third parties and purported “fabrication” of the litigation.
Hri Kumar Nair J granted AET’s application to expunge the offending materials, save for paragraph 5 of Deng’s Defence. The court’s core reasoning was that the impugned materials were not directed to the triable issues in the action, but instead were used to advance a narrative about control and influence over AET and its directors by a third party. The court treated these materials as an abuse of process and/or as failing the relevance and propriety requirements governing affidavits and pleadings under the Rules of Court 2021.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying action involved AET’s claim against Deng for wrongful conversion, detention and/or misappropriation of 627 diamond seeds and loose diamonds (collectively, “the Diamonds”). AET alleged that it had purchased the Diamonds earlier from X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd (“XDC”). At all material times, XDC was said to be majority-owned and/or controlled by Deng. The defence, in broad terms, challenged AET’s entitlement and/or the factual basis for the claim, and sought to introduce a wider story about the circumstances surrounding the litigation.
In the procedural posture leading to HC/SUM 1991/2023, AET had also brought a summary judgment application (HC/SUM 1488/2023). The present summons was therefore not only about striking out or expunging materials, but also about narrowing the evidential and argumentative landscape for the court’s consideration of summary judgment. Deng’s defence and supporting affidavits and submissions contained a number of passages and exhibits that AET characterised as irrelevant to the issues to be tried and as being deployed for collateral purposes.
The “offending materials” included specific paragraphs in Deng’s first affidavit (as enclosed to an earlier affidavit filed in SUM 1488), tabs within an exhibit, and corresponding references in Deng’s written submissions. It also included paragraph 5 of Deng’s Defence (though this was ultimately preserved), and the entirety of a first affidavit of Xu Kang filed in SUM 1991. In addition, the court considered parts of Deng’s third affidavit and associated exhibits. These materials were not limited to the immediate dispute over the Diamonds; rather, they contained allegations and documents concerning third parties and purported relationships and influence affecting AET and its parent company.
For context, Deng’s narrative relied on various documents and allegations to assert that AET’s parent company, Metech International Limited (“Metech”), and AET’s director Ms Samantha Hua Lei (“Ms Samantha”) were under the control or influence of one Wu Yongqiang (“Wu”). Deng further alleged that Wu was using that influence to cause AET to “fabricate” and pursue the action against Deng, in the hope of stifling XDC’s claim against Wu in HC/OC 9/2023 (“OC 9”). OC 9 was an action brought by XDC against Wu for $4,000,000 for shares in AET sold by XDC to Wu. XDC obtained judgment against Wu on 4 July 2023 after Wu failed to meet a condition attached to leave to defend, and enforcement proceedings were ongoing.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The principal legal issue was whether the court should exercise its powers under the Rules of Court 2021 to strike out or expunge various pleadings, affidavits, exhibits and written submissions on the ground that they were irrelevant, scandalous, and/or an abuse of process. This required the court to assess the relevance of the impugned materials to the triable issues in the underlying action for wrongful conversion/detention/misappropriation of the Diamonds.
A second issue concerned the procedural regime applicable to the expunging application. The court noted that in a related insolvency/restructuring context—Re X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd (Metech International Ltd, non-party) [2023] SGHC 201—an earlier judge had expunged certain documents using a different rules framework (r 21 of the CIR Rules). Deng argued by analogy that the issues in the present action were distinct from those in Re X Diamond Capital and that the materials should therefore be treated as relevant here. The court had to determine whether that earlier approach carried over, and what the correct striking-out/expunging standards were under ROC 2021.
A third issue was the proper treatment of affidavits and the content requirements imposed by O 15 r 25 of ROC 2021. The court had to consider whether the offending materials in affidavits complied with the requirement that affidavits contain only relevant facts, and whether they included content intended to offend, belittle, or otherwise undermine the integrity of the court process. While the judgment extract provided focuses on relevance and abuse of process, the legal framework also required attention to the propriety of affidavit content.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Hri Kumar Nair J began by identifying the applicable law under ROC 2021. For striking out pleadings and other documents, the court relied on O 9 r 16(1), which empowers the court to strike out any part of a pleading on grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, constitutes an abuse of process, or it is in the interests of justice to do so. For affidavits and other documents, the court relied on O 9 r 16(4), which similarly permits striking out or redaction where the party had no right to file the affidavit or document, where it is an abuse of process, or where it is in the interests of justice to do so.
The court also emphasised O 15 r 25, which provides that an affidavit must contain only relevant facts and must not contain vulgar or insulting words unless those words are in issue, nor anything intended to offend or to belittle any person or entity. The judge observed that the ROC 2021 provisions differ from the predecessor ROC 2014 regime, particularly in how striking out of affidavits is framed. Under ROC 2014, there was an express “scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive” formulation for affidavits, but under ROC 2021 the focus is on the content requirements and the court’s broader powers to strike out or redact affidavits as an abuse of process or in the interests of justice.
On the procedural regime point, the court distinguished the present case from Re X Diamond Capital. In Re X Diamond Capital, the court had applied r 21 of the CIR Rules to expunge affidavits in the context of a judicial management application under s 90 of the IRDA. However, the judge in the present case held that r 21 of the CIR Rules did not apply to the present matter. The correct regime was therefore ROC 2021, not the insolvency-specific striking-out provision used in Re X Diamond Capital. This distinction mattered because it clarified that the court’s analysis should be grounded in the general civil procedure rules governing relevance and abuse of process in affidavits and pleadings.
Turning to relevance, the judge treated the “offending materials” as largely irrelevant to the triable issues in the Diamonds dispute. The court noted that Deng’s narrative about Wu’s alleged control or influence over Metech and AET, and Wu’s alleged use of that influence to cause AET to fabricate the litigation, did not directly address whether Deng wrongfully converted, detained or misappropriated the Diamonds. While such allegations might be argued to provide context or to suggest ulterior motives, the court found that the materials were being used to advance a collateral account rather than to engage with the factual and legal elements of the claim and defence.
In this respect, the court drew support from the reasoning in Re X Diamond Capital. In that earlier case, Goh Yihan JC had expunged documents relied upon to substantiate an implausible account of collateral purpose. The present judge observed that although the issues in the two proceedings were not identical, the underlying concern—documents and allegations being deployed for collateral purposes rather than to prove relevant matters—was analogous. The judge also noted that some of the documents were already ordered expunged in Re X Diamond Capital, reinforcing the conclusion that they should not be permitted to remain in the evidential record in the present action.
Finally, the court addressed Deng’s submissions that the issues were “distinctly different” and that the materials should therefore be relevant. The judge rejected this approach, holding that relevance is not determined merely by the labels of the proceedings but by whether the materials bear on the issues the court must decide. Where the materials do not assist the court in determining the rights and obligations in dispute, and instead risk distracting the court and the parties through scandalous or collateral allegations, expunging is appropriate. The court’s decision to preserve paragraph 5 of Deng’s Defence (but expunge the rest) reflects a calibrated approach: the court did not treat all of Deng’s defence as tainted, but only those parts that fell within the identified offending categories.
What Was the Outcome?
The court granted AET’s application to expunge the offending materials, with the exception of paragraph 5 of Deng’s Defence. Practically, this meant that specified paragraphs of Deng’s affidavits, specified tabs and exhibits, and corresponding portions of Deng’s written submissions were removed from the court record for the purposes of the action. The expunging order also affected the evidential basis for Deng’s defence and the court’s consideration of AET’s summary judgment application.
By expunging the materials, the court reduced the risk that the proceedings would be derailed by allegations concerning third parties, purported relationships, and alleged ulterior motives not directly connected to the Diamonds dispute. The decision therefore reinforced the court’s gatekeeping role in ensuring that pleadings and affidavits contain only relevant facts and do not operate as vehicles for collateral attacks.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it illustrates the High Court’s willingness to expunge affidavit and pleading material that is not genuinely relevant to the issues to be determined. Even where a party frames allegations as providing context or explaining motive, the court will scrutinise whether the material actually assists in resolving the substantive dispute. The decision underscores that relevance is assessed functionally: the question is whether the material bears on the elements of the claim or defence, not whether it is narratively connected to the broader background.
Second, the case provides a clear procedural reminder about the correct striking-out regime. Parties cannot assume that because a different court applied a particular insolvency-specific rule in another matter, the same approach will apply in a civil action. The judge’s analysis confirms that ROC 2021 governs striking out and redaction of pleadings and affidavits in the ordinary civil context, including through O 9 r 16 and O 15 r 25. This is particularly important for litigants who rely on earlier expunging decisions to justify retaining collateral material.
Third, the decision has practical implications for how affidavits should be drafted. Affidavits must contain only relevant facts and must avoid content that is intended to offend or belittle. While the judgment extract focuses on relevance and abuse of process, the legal framework makes clear that affidavit content is subject to strict discipline. Lawyers should therefore carefully screen exhibits, third-party allegations, and “motive” narratives before filing, especially in applications for summary judgment where the court’s focus is on whether there is a real prospect of defending the claim.
Legislation Referenced
- Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) — referenced in relation to the earlier insolvency/restructuring context (judicial management under s 90)
- Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Corporate Insolvency and Restructuring) Rules 2020 (CIR Rules) — r 21 (not applicable on the facts of the present case)
- Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021) — O 9 r 16(1) and O 9 r 16(4); O 15 r 25
Cases Cited
- [2022] SGHC 309
- [2022] SGMC 53
- [2023] SGHC 201
- [2023] SGHC 227
- [2023] SGHC 255
- [2023] SGHC 260
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGHC 227 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.