The Resolution and Collection Corporation v Tsuneji Kawabe and others

The Resolution and Collection Corporation, a Japanese-incorporated company, obtained judgments in Japan against the first defendant and his company, the second defendant. After the first defendant died, it sued in Singapore (HC/S 716/2021) to enforce those judgments against his widow (the third defendant) and his daughter (the fourth defendant). The sixth and seventh defendants are companies owned by the daughter. The plaintiff's case is that the first defendant fraudulently misappropriated assets and that the fourth, sixth and seventh defendants (the Specified Defendants) hold assets on trust for the first and second defendants, so that they are liable in unjust enrichment or knowing receipt.

Earlier discovery rounds had been decided in [2024] SGHC 63 and [2024] SGHC 259, the latter ordering unredacted copies of documents the Specified Defendants had produced heavily redacted. The plaintiff then filed HC/SUM 3735/2024 for further discovery. The Assistant Registrar ordered discovery of several categories on amended terms, with costs of $16,000 plus disbursements of $40,000 against the Specified Defendants. They appealed (Registrar's Appeal No 76 of 2025) against the orders on Categories 8, 9 and 12 and against costs.

1. Whether discovery should be confined to inflows of funds now that the fourth defendant had disclosed her source of funds
2. Whether Categories 8, 9 and 12 were relevant, necessary and sufficiently precise
3. Whether the Specified Defendants should be allowed to redact irrelevant or privileged material
4. Whether the costs of the discovery application should have been reserved to the trial judge

On the scope of discovery, the court separated tracing as a remedy, ordered after liability is established, from tracing as an evidentiary tool used to prove liability. This application was of the second kind. Splitting outflows from inflows was artificial, since money may pass through intermediaries before reaching its final holder, and the plaintiff had to prove its case against each defendant.

On Categories 8 and 9, the incorporation papers, board records and communications of the sixth and seventh defendants bore directly on where their assets came from, and the plaintiff's expert said they were needed. The limits to named parties, to "incorporation, assets and management" and to 2001 to 2023 made them precise enough. Category 12, on property purchases and mortgages, had been refused earlier as too wide, but the time limit and the sixth defendant's annual reports showing property income justified it now; the documents should not be voluminous.

On redaction, the earlier heavily redacted production had hidden potentially relevant material and caused further applications, so a broad redaction right would invite more litigation and delay.

On costs, the court accepted that the plaintiff might not succeed at trial and that it would be unjust for the Specified Defendants to bear costs of discovery that might bear no fruit.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, only to the extent of varying the costs order. The discovery orders for Categories 8, 9 and 12 on the Assistant Registrar's amended terms stood, no redaction right was granted, and costs of the summons were reserved to the trial judge.