INVEST PARTNERS CAPITAL GROUP PTE. LTD. v DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 20–26 July 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Perry Peh |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Allen & Gledhill LLP, Duxton Hill Chambers, Premier Law LLC, Annabel Kwek, Clara Lim, Jared Sim, Jennifer Lim, Jung Sol |
Source: [2026] SGHCR 26, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (8)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Invest Partners Capital Group Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2026] SGHCR 26 was decided in the General Division of the High Court by AR Perry Peh on 20 July 2026, in Originating Claim No 543 of 2025 (Summonses Nos 1318 and 1319 of 2026). The Claimant, an external asset manager, alleged that the Defendant's relationship manager undercut it, causing a client to terminate a Limited Power of Attorney on or around 7 November 2023. Both parties brought applications for specific production, and the Claimant also sought further and better particulars. The issues included materiality, privilege and the bar on production of private or internal correspondence under O 11 r 5(2) of the ROC 2021. The applications were allowed in part, with costs orders including $6,000 and disbursements of $2,100 against the Claimant on the Defendant's application.
[2026] SGHCR 26 explained
INVEST PARTNERS CAPITAL GROUP PTE. LTD. v DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT ([2026] SGHCR 26) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 20 July 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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 [2026] SGHCR 26 about?
INVEST PARTNERS CAPITAL GROUP PTE. LTD. v DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT ([2026] SGHCR 26) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Further and better particulars”, “Civil Procedure — Production of documents — Privileged documents”, “Civil Procedure — Production of documents — Production of requested documents”, and “Civil Procedure — Production of documents — Private or internal correspondence”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHCR 26 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 327, [2024] SGHCR 9, and [2024] SGHCR 8, and 2 more. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2026] SGHCR 26?
Within this corpus, [2026] SGHCR 26 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court, through AR Perry Peh, decided two applications pending trial in a claim by external asset manager Invest Partners Capital Group Pte Ltd against Deutsche Bank AG over the termination of a Limited Power of Attorney held for a client. The applications sought specific production of documents and further and better particulars. Both were allowed in part. Production of third-party correspondence in one category was ordered, and the bank was ordered to pay $3,500 and disbursements of $1,120.40 on the particulars application.
What was Invest Partners Capital Group Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2026] SGHCR 26 about?
It concerned two applications pending trial for specific production of documents and further particulars, in a claim that Deutsche Bank's conduct caused a client to terminate a Limited Power of Attorney held by the external asset manager.
What did the court decide on private or internal correspondence in [2026] SGHCR 26?
AR Perry Peh held that the bar on producing private or internal correspondence did not cover communications between a client and third parties that were forwarded to the Claimant, and allowed the Defendant's request for Category 5.
Cases Cited (21)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHCR 26)