ARIEF PURWADA & 4 Ors v ARIANTO PURWADA & 2 Ors
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 7–13 September 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Philip Jeyaretnam |
| Charges / claim | Banking, Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Allen & Gledhill LLP, Ascendant Legal LLC, Drew & Napier LLC, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Cheong Tian Ci Torsten, Chew Kei-Jin, Chia Xin Ran Alina, Estad Amber Joy, Eunice Chan Swee En, Francis Xavier, Jared Sim Yu Hern, Lim Fang-Xin Olive, Lim Gerui, Liu Enning, Pek Yu Chin, Seth Yeo Ao-Wen, Sim Jek Sok Disa, Tan Hua Chong Edwin, Tan Xeauwei, Tay Bok Chong Alvin, Teo Jim Yang, Yeo Alexander Lawrence Han Tiong |
Source: [2026] SGHC 184, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (22)
Parties (9)
Case Significance
Re Arief Purwada (in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of Indriaty Purwada, deceased) and others [2026] SGHC 184 is a General Division of the High Court decision of Philip Jeyaretnam J dated 10 September 2026, after hearings on 8 July and 3 August 2026. In Originating Claim No 89 of 2025, siblings sued the 1st Defendant, Arianto Purwada, for allegedly misappropriating assets in bank accounts held jointly with their late parents. Summonses Nos 751, 752 and 753 of 2026 sought documents from UBS AG, DBS Bank Limited and Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft. The issues were the interaction between O 11 r 11 of the Rules of Court 2021 and the bankers' books exception under the Banking Act 1970. The court allowed the summonses in part and dismissed Registrar's Appeal No 170 of 2026.
[2026] SGHC 184 explained
ARIEF PURWADA & 4 Ors v ARIANTO PURWADA & 2 Ors ([2026] SGHC 184) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 10 September 2026. It is categorised under Banking and Civil Procedure. 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 [2026] SGHC 184 about?
ARIEF PURWADA & 4 Ors v ARIANTO PURWADA & 2 Ors ([2026] SGHC 184) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Banking — Secrecy — Exceptions”, “Banking — Secrecy — Banking Act 1970 (2020 Rev Ed)”, “Banking — Bankers’ books — Proceedings — Interlocutory”, and “Civil Procedure — Discovery of documents — Application — Bankers’ books”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 184 consider?
The judgment refers to Banking Act, Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 184 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHCR 27, [2026] SGHC 103, and [2023] SGHCR 13. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard three applications (SUM 751 to 753 of 2026) by Arief Purwada, as administrator of his parents' estates and personally, for production of documents from non-party banks UBS AG, DBS Bank Limited and Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, in a family dispute over alleged misappropriation of assets. The court considered how O 11 r 11 of the Rules of Court 2021 interacts with banking secrecy. It allowed the summonses in part, dismissed Registrar's Appeal No 170 of 2026 in its entirety, and awarded the banks costs of S$18,000, S$15,000 and S$21,000.
What did Re Arief Purwada [2026] SGHC 184 decide on production of documents by banks?
Philip Jeyaretnam J allowed Arief Purwada's applications for document production against UBS AG, DBS Bank Limited and Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft in part, applying O 11 r 11 of the Rules of Court 2021 alongside banking secrecy under the Banking Act 1970.
What costs were awarded to the non-party banks in [2026] SGHC 184?
The court allowed costs of the application of S$18,000 for UBS, with disbursements of S$2,718.30, S$15,000 for DBS and S$21,000 for Deutsche Bank. Costs of compliance with the orders are to be agreed or taxed.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (16)
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] SGHC 184)