Esave AG v Esave APAC Pte. Ltd. and others

eSave AG, a Swiss maker of light sensors and lighting products and the registered proprietor of the eSave mark in Singapore, agreed with Mr Lee Tze Boon to set up eSave APAC Pte Ltd as a joint venture. In Originating Claim No 265 of 2025, eSave AG alleged that the mark could be used only on products containing its components, such as its core chip, and that eSave APAC infringed it by supplying lighting products bearing the mark, without the chip, under a Housing & Development Board tender. eSave APAC said it had the right and consent to use the mark in exchange for eSave AG's 20% stake, that eSave AG's products had featured only in a 2020 proof of concept trial that did not proceed, and that the tender, submitted on 2 March 2023 and awarded on 28 September 2023, was won with its own products. An earlier interim injunction application had been dismissed on the balance of convenience.

In HC/SUM 883/2026 eSave AG sought production of three categories of documents. It withdrew the first. The second was the tender proposal referred to in eSave APAC's defence. The third was all documents relating to the 2023 HDB project, drawn from phrases in an affidavit Mr Lee filed opposing the injunction.

1. Whether a party is entitled under the Rules of Court 2021 to production of documents referred to in the other side's affidavits, as well as its pleadings.
2. What approach governs such applications, including when good cause to resist production exists.
3. Whether the tender proposal and the documents relating to the HDB project were referred to in the pleading or affidavit, and should be produced.

Interactive Digital Finance Ltd and another v Credit Suisse AG and another [2023] 5 SLR 1735 recognised the court's power under O 11 r 4 and O 3 r 2(2) to order production of documents referred to in pleadings. The same reasons apply to affidavits: a document a party chooses to cite likely supports its account, fairness and parity favour disclosure, and the 2021 Rules favour a cards-on-the-table approach over tactics.

A document is referred to where it is specifically mentioned or directly alluded to; a reference to a transaction that was probably effected by a document is not enough. The party resisting production bears the burden of showing good cause, which may arise where production would be disproportionate to the issues, where a rules-based bar such as privilege or private correspondence applies, or where the document is not in its possession or control. Train-of-inquiry objections and a necessity test do not apply.

The tender proposal said to be submitted on a specified date was a document, not merely a transaction, and its possession was not denied. The affidavit's references to a contract concerned contractual obligations, not a document. The reference to preserving all project documents was a specific mention, but production of so broad a class would be disproportionate. As narrowed by counsel, the contract was material to the central dispute over what use of the mark was permitted.

Assistant Registrar Elton Tan Xue Yang allowed the application in part. He ordered eSave APAC to produce the tender proposal submitted to the HDB on 2 March 2023. He rejected the third category as originally worded, but ordered specific production of eSave APAC's contract with the HDB or EM Services Pte Ltd for the 2023 project. Timelines and costs were left for further hearing.