RB INVESTMENTS PTE LTD v JASON ALEKSANDER KARDACHI & 2 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 274 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and Restructuring and Dissolution Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 274 High Court (General Division) 29 September 2023 HC/OA 473/2023 26 min read

10 cases cited (8 SG, 2 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	29 September 2023
Judge	Philip Jeyaretnam
Charges / claim	Evidence, Insolvency Law
Counsel	Allen & Gledhill LLP, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Rev Law LLC, Abigail Tang En-Ping, Ashwin Kumar Menon, Chua Sui Tong, Ee Jia Min, Foo Xian Fong, Liew Min Yi Glenna, Tan Yen Jee, Vikram Nair, Yeo Alexander Lawrence Han Tiong

Source: [2023] SGHC 274, High Court (General Division), decided 29 September 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Evidence — Legal advice privilege Insolvency Law — Bankruptcy — Trustee in bankruptcy

Practice Areas

Evidence Insolvency Law

Judges (1)

Philip Jeyaretnam Delivered

Counsel (12)

Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm Rev Law LLC Firm Abigail Tang En-Ping Counsel Respondent Ashwin Kumar Menon Counsel Claimant Chua Sui Tong Counsel Respondent Ee Jia Min Counsel Respondent Foo Xian Fong Counsel Claimant Liew Min Yi Glenna Counsel Claimant Tan Yen Jee Counsel Respondent Vikram Nair Counsel Claimant Yeo Alexander Lawrence Han Tiong Counsel Respondent

Parties (4)

RB Investments Pte Ltd Claimant Jason Aleksander Kardachi Respondent Patrick Bance Respondent Wong Shaw Mooi Respondent

Case Significance

RB Investments Pte Ltd v Kardachi, Jason Aleksander and others [2023] SGHC 274 is a reserved judgment of Philip Jeyaretnam J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 29 September 2023 in Originating Application No 473 of 2023. The private trustees of a bankrupt had come into possession of documents bearing on the bankrupt's pre-bankruptcy dealings, some of which had also been sent to lawyers engaged by the claimant, RB Investments Pte Ltd, perhaps for mixed purposes of due diligence and legal advice. The application sought to expunge those documents from an affidavit filed in examination proceedings and to prohibit their further use, turning on whether the communications were subject to legal advice privilege and, if so, whether that privilege was lost upon forwarding.

[2023] SGHC 274 explained

RB INVESTMENTS PTE LTD v JASON ALEKSANDER KARDACHI & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHC 274) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 29 September 2023. It is categorised under Evidence and Insolvency Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 274 about?

RB INVESTMENTS PTE LTD v JASON ALEKSANDER KARDACHI & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHC 274) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Evidence — Legal advice privilege” and “Insolvency Law — Bankruptcy — Trustee in bankruptcy”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 274 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and Restructuring and Dissolution Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Private trustees of a bankrupt obtained documents the bankrupt had emailed, via an address associated with RB Investments Pte Ltd, to a business associate, and RB Investments applied to expunge them from an affidavit and prohibit their further use, asserting legal advice privilege. The issue was whether the communications were privileged and, if privilege was lost on forwarding, whether equity should restrain their use. Philip Jeyaretnam J held the forwarding was neither privileged nor received under a duty of confidentiality, and dismissed the application.

What was RB Investments Pte Ltd v Kardachi [2023] SGHC 274 about?

It was an application before Philip Jeyaretnam J, decided on 29 September 2023, by RB Investments Pte Ltd to expunge documents from an affidavit filed by a bankrupt's private trustees and to prohibit their further use, on grounds of legal advice privilege.

What privilege question did [2023] SGHC 274 turn on?

The application turned on whether communications sent to lawyers engaged by the claimant were subject to legal advice privilege, and if such privilege existed in the initial communications, whether it was lost when the documents were later forwarded to a third party.