Singapore Court Clarifies Bankers’ Books Exception and Applicability of Alternative Routes

Introduction

Under Singapore law, banks are subject to strict banking secrecy obligations prohibiting the disclosure of customer information to third parties. However, there are certain exceptions to banking secrecy, such as the Bankers’ Books Exception, under which the court may order a bank to allow inspection or disclosure of entries in a banker’s book for legal proceedings.

The navigation of banking secrecy may at times be complicated, with banks and litigants having to grapple with issues such as the applicability of secrecy obligations and the relevant exceptions. These questions were at the forefront of the decision of Re Arief Purwada (in his capacity as the administrator of the estate of Indriaty Purwada, deceased) and others and other matters (UBS AG and others, non-parties) [2026] SGHC 184, where the Singapore High Court provided guidance on key issues including the scope of banking secrecy exceptions and the meaning of bankers’ books.

The Court was faced with applications for the production of documents from various banks in a claim relating to the alleged misappropriation of assets, and ultimately only allowed the applications in part. In reaching its decision, the Court clarified that the Third Schedule to the Banking Act 1970 (“Banking Act“) is exhaustive of the situations where banking secrecy may be disregarded, rejecting the applicants’ attempt at establishing alternative routes. The Court also set out a clear analytical framework for applications for production orders against banks.

The 1st Defendant in the main action is represented by Francis Xavier, SC, Disa Sim, Alina Chia, Edwin Tan, Torsten Cheong and Alvin Tay of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. The 1st Defendant successfully limited the scope of customer information to bankers’ books in applications brought by the Claimants against third-party banks for production.

This Update provides a summary of the Court’s decision and highlights the key takeaways for banks and litigants regarding the production of banking documents and the operation of banking secrecy and its exceptions.

Brief Facts

The case arose from a family dispute. The Claimants were siblings who brought an action against, amongst others, one of their siblings (the 1st Defendant) for allegedly misappropriating assets from bank accounts jointly held by one or both of the parents. One of the Claimants was also acting as the administrator of the estates of both late parents.

The Claimants had sought information and documents from various banks in order to determine what (if any) assets had been transferred by the 1st Defendant. They commenced the current applications, seeking disclosure of documents by three non-party banks, including various correspondence, call logs and voice notes.

Holding of the High Court

The law on banking secrecy, as set out in the Banking Act, provides that a bank in Singapore may not disclose “customer information” except as expressly provided in the Banking Act. Exceptions to the general rule on non-disclosure are expressly provided in the Third Schedule to the Banking Act, including the Bankers’ Books Exception, which covers disclosure that is necessary for compliance with an order of court pursuant to the Evidence Act 1893 (“Evidence Act“).

The Applicants sought to establish an alternative route to bypass the banking secrecy obligations. They submitted that even if the Bankers’ Books Exception did not apply, the Court may still order the production of bankers’ books containing customer information under O 11 r 11(1) of the Rules of Court 2021, which provides that production may be ordered “for any other lawful purpose, in the interests of justice”. The Court rejected this argument and accepted the 1st Defendant’s submission that the Third Schedule to the Banking Act is exhaustive of the situations where banking secrecy may be disregarded.

The Court set out a clear analytical framework for applications for production orders against non-party banks: 

1. The Court should first consider whether the information sought constitutes “customer information” under the Banking Act. If not, banking secrecy does not apply and the only question is whether production should be ordered under O 11 r 11(1). 
2. If the information is customer information, the Court must consider whether any exception in the Third Schedule to the Banking Act applies. If not, the bank cannot be compelled to produce the information. 
3. If a party relies on the Bankers’ Books Exception, a three-step test must be applied: (i) whether the documents are “bankers’ books” under the Evidence Act; (ii) whether the proceedings constitute a “legal proceeding” under the Evidence Act; and (iii) whether the Court should exercise its discretion to order inspection.

The Court also provided the following guidance what falls within the definition of “bankers’ books”:

1. Under the Evidence Act, bankers’ books include ledgers, day books, cash books, account books and all other books used in the ordinary business of the bank.
2. “Other books” refers to any form of permanent record maintained by a bank in relation to the transactions of a customer. While this includes documents recording or effectingthe transfer of assets, it does not include documents merely relating to the opening or closure of accounts.
3. Further, the documents must be “properly sorted and filed” to constitute “books” within the meaning of “bankers’ books”.

As for the final question of whether the Court should exercise its discretion to make an order for production, the Court adopted the position that the “overarching inquiry is the reasonableness and propriety of the application to inspect otherwise confidential documents between a bank and its customer”. The relevant factors would include:

1. the relevancy of the documents to the underlying legal proceeding;
2. the applicant’s efforts in seeking disclosure of the documents concerned prior to taking out an application; and
3. the applicant’s good faith in seeking inspection and taking of copies.

Accordingly, the Court limited production of customer information by the non-party banks to documents falling within the category of “other books” in the definition of bankers’ books under section 170 of the Evidence Act.

Concluding Words

The Court’s decision provides welcome clarification on the application of banking secrecy obligations and the scope of banking secrecy exceptions – specifically, the Bankers’ Books Exception. Banks facing applications for disclosure of documents may be guided by the framework set out by the Court, including:

1. whether the appropriate analytical framework is the Bankers’ Book Exception or O 11 r 11(1) of the Rules of Court 2021;
2. whether the documents are “bankers’ books” so as to engage the Bankers’ Books Exception; and
3. whether the Court may exercise its discretion to make an order for production.

Banking secrecy is a complex topic that involves the navigation of various statutes and precedents, as well as insight as to the nuances of banking documents. If you have any further queries in this regard, please feel free to contact our team set out on this page.

For regional disputes matters, please see Rajah & Tann Asia’s Regional Dispute Resolution Practice for more information.