1 The plaintiff mother has a long history of denying the defendant (her former husband, the father of their daughter), access to their child. Matters came to a head in 2022 when the plaintiff breached a court order in refusing to send the daughter to see the defendant in the United States of America where the defendant works as a doctor. After several evasive actions by the plaintiff, the defendant applied for stricter orders on the plaintiff to ensure that the defendant gains access to the child.

2 I was minded to order that the child, being 8 years old at the time, fly alone to the United States, but the plaintiff objected on the ground that the child was too young to travel alone. I then ordered the plaintiff to bring the child to court so that I may ascertain whether she is capable of flying alone. The plaintiff said that the child did not wish to see me, thereby refusing the court access to the child.

3 Eventually, on 25 October 2022, I ordered the plaintiff to produce the child in court. She did not, writing by email purportedly from France, to say that the child was ill and could not fly. I gave her five days to bring the child. At the deadline, the plaintiff wrote to say that the child was unwell, and they would not be coming to court. In the meantime, the defendant had begun committal proceedings against the plaintiff. Notice of the application had been served on her. Given the circumstances, I ordered a warrant of arrest to be issued against the plaintiff on 8 May 2023. She has not been seen in Singapore since.

4 The defendant applied and obtained an order on 21 July before me, granting him sole custody, and care and control of the child. The defendant said at the hearing on 21 July 2023, that the plaintiff refused to disclose where the child is. Therefore, in an effort to locate the plaintiff and the child, the defendant applied by Summons 276 of 2023 in October 2023 to compel the DBS Bank Ltd (“DBS Bank”), where the plaintiff maintains certain accounts, to disclose those accounts and the documents showing their transaction history. By the same summons, the defendant prays for an order that the Supreme Court of Singapore discloses the plaintiff’s internet protocol address (“IP address”).

5 The defendant said that as recently as 10 July 2023 the plaintiff’s DBS Bank account was still active, and that the defendant had transferred US$162,810 as the balance due to the plaintiff as her share in the matrimonial home. The defendant also said that the court proceedings on 21 July 2023 was heard through live video (Zoom). He said that the Court, as the host of the Zoom proceedings will have the plaintiff’s IP address. He said that the IP address will lead to information about the child’s whereabouts.

6 Neither the DBS Bank Ltd nor the Supreme Court is named in the summons, but Mr Tham Hsu Hsien and Ms Abigail Fernandez of Allen & Gledhill LLP appeared as counsel for the bank as the first non-party. State counsel Ms Ho Jiayun and Mr Chng Luey Chi appeared as counsel for the Supreme Court as the second non-party.

7 Ms Fernandez submitted that the DBS Bank holds a neutral position and will accede to any court order requiring the release of the documents and information, but the bank must adhere to the obligations of banking secrecy. However, provided that the application is made in the right terms and in satisfaction of s 175(1) of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed), the bank will comply with the court orders. Seeing that the defendant was unrepresented, Ms Fernandez said that the Bank will accept an order of court in terms of the draft produced. The defendant said that he has no objections to having his summons amended to reflect the draft order of court. I accepted the summons as amended accordingly, and granted an order in terms of the draft order of court, with costs of $4,000 plus any extraction fees that the bank might incur in getting the documents.

8 The draft order of court provides as follows:

9 So far as the request for the disclosure of the plaintiff’s IP address is concerned, Ms Ho submitted that the only basis for ordering discovery against the Supreme Court is s 34(1) of the Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed), but that provision only applies where the Supreme Court is a party in the proceedings. The defendant’s application is made under DT 2504 of 2018, which is a divorce proceeding between the plaintiff and the defendant. There is therefore no legal basis to compel the Supreme Court to disclose the plaintiff’s IP address. I agree with Ms Ho.

10 Furthermore, even if the defendant has the standing to apply for the information, the IP address is not information that ought to be released in aid of a private manhunt. It is common knowledge that the IP address is sensitive information that can, if used indiscriminately, lead to unwanted consequences. The IP address, if leaked or fell into the wrong hands, can become a hacker’s tool. The court has no resources to control how the IP address is used once it gets released. The defendant may have to call upon police assistance to obtain the IP address. For the above reasons, the defendant’s application for the disclosure of the plaintiff’s IP address is dismissed with no order as to costs.