Vuillemin v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corp: Recusal Application & Anton Piller Order Appeal

Werner Samuel Vuillemin ("V") applied for Justice Woo Bih Li to recuse himself from hearing matters related to District Court Suit No 3051 of 2013, including an appeal against the dismissal of his application for an Anton Piller order. The underlying suit involves V's claim against Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited (“the Bank”) for the contents of his safe deposit box. Justice Woo dismissed the recusal application and V's appeal, finding no basis for the allegations of prejudice or for granting the Anton Piller order. The court also expressed concern about the delay in the substantive action.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Recusal Summons and appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Werner Vuillemin's recusal application and appeal against the dismissal of his Anton Piller order were dismissed. The court found no basis for recusal or the order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Werner Samuel VuilleminAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualRecusal Summons DismissedLost
Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation LimitedRespondent, DefendantCorporationRecusal Summons DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ang Leong HaoRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Jansen ChowRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Sara SimRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. V claimed the Bank should deliver contents of his safe deposit box.
  2. The Bank opened the box after the branch was re-developed.
  3. V applied for an Anton Piller order to search the Bank's premises.
  4. The District Judge dismissed the application for an Anton Piller order.
  5. V appealed the dismissal of the Anton Piller order application.
  6. V applied for the judge to recuse himself from the case.
  7. The Bank offered to hand over the contents without requiring V to sign release forms.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another matter, , [2018] SGHC 92

6. Timeline

DateEvent
District Court Suit No 3051 filed
Bank opened the Box and removed the contents
District Court Summons No 131 of 2017 filed
DC/SUM 3920/2017 filed for an Anton Piller order
Summons for an Anton Piller Order dismissed by DJ Chiah
RAS 3/2018 filed to appeal the decision
Initial hearing for RAS 3/2018 adjourned due to V's absence
Hearing for RAS 3/2018 adjourned
Recusal Summons filed
Recusal Summons and RAS 3/2018 heard and dismissed
Grounds of decision delivered for previous applications

7. Legal Issues

  1. Recusal of Judge
    • Outcome: The court found no reasonable suspicion of bias and dismissed the recusal application.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 3 SLR 725
  2. Anton Piller Order
    • Outcome: The court found that the requirements for granting an Anton Piller order were not met and dismissed the appeal.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] 1 SLR(R) 901
      • [2011] 2 SLR 541

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Delivery of contents of safe deposit box
  2. Anton Piller order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Failure to deliver contents of safe deposit box

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] 3 SLR 501SingaporeCited as the judge's previous decision involving the same parties, which formed the basis of the recusal application.
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch)Court of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 901SingaporeCited for the requirements that must be satisfied before an Anton Piller order may be granted.
BP Singapore Pte Ltd v Quek Chin Thean and othersHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 541SingaporeCited for the requirements that must be satisfied before an Anton Piller order may be granted.
TOW v TOVHigh CourtYes[2017] 3 SLR 725SingaporeCited to support the Recusal Summons and for the test for recusal on the ground of apparent bias.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Recusal
  • Anton Piller order
  • Safe deposit box
  • Prejudice
  • Apparent bias
  • Security for costs
  • Extension of time
  • Tampering
  • Inventory list

15.2 Keywords

  • Recusal
  • Anton Piller order
  • Banking
  • Safe deposit box
  • Singapore
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Anton Piller Orders80
Civil Practice70
Recusal60
Property Law30
Contract Law20
Banking and Finance10
Criminal Procedure5
Arbitration5

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Banking Law