Singapore High Court holds that the Riddick principle ceases to

Dispute Resolution
Singapore
Client Alert
February 2015
Singapore High Court holds that the Riddick
principle ceases to apply once a document has
been used in open court
For further information please contact:
Introduction
Chan Leng Sun, SC
Tel: +65 6434 2588
A party to litigation who has obtained discovery of a document owes an
implied undertaking to the court not to use that document for any collateral or
ulterior purpose (the "Riddick principle").
lengsun.chan@bakermckenzie.com
Andy Leck
Tel: +65 6434 2525
andy.leck@bakermckenzie.com
Nandakumar Ponniya
Tel: +65 6434 2663
nandakumar.ponniya@bakermckenzie.com
Celeste Ang
Tel: +65 6434 2753
celeste.ang@bakermckenzie.com
Liu Zeming
+65 6434 2274
zeming.liu@bakermckenzie.com
Address
8 Marina Boulevard, #05-01
Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 1
Singapore 018981
www.bakermckenzie.com
However, does the Riddick principle continue to apply after the document has
been used in an open court hearing of the matter, or are parties at liberty to
use the document for other purposes (for example, in another suit) thereafter?
This issue was considered for the first time in Singapore by the Singapore
High Court in Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim and another [2015]
SGHC 23.
The Singapore High Court held that the Riddick principle ceases to apply once
the document has been used in open court. However, the party who discloses
the document or the party who owns the document may apply to the court for
the implied undertaking to continue. Such an application should be made
before the document is used in the open court hearing.
The Facts
The Plaintiff and the Defendants were shareholders in various entities,
including Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd ("RTC").
In 2000, various suits involving the parties were instituted. The trial for the
suits was partially heard and finally resolved by an out-of-court settlement.
In 2006, another suit was commenced by RTC against, amongst others, the
Plaintiff and the Defendants ("Year 2006 Suit"). Pursuant to discovery
obligations in the Year 2006 Suit, the Defendants furnished a handwritten
document in the Chinese language titled "Minutes of Meeting" and dated 14
April 2001 ("Document"). The Document was referred to and used in open
court during the trial of the Year 2006 Suit.
The Plaintiff subsequently instituted the present proceedings against the
Defendants for damages for, among other things, deceit, misrepresentation
and conspiracy.
According to the Plaintiff, the Document constituted evidence of a certain
agreement between the Defendants and third parties, which was in turn
relevant - and in fact crucial - to the Plaintiff's case in the present proceedings.
The Defendants sought to strike out the Plaintiff's statement of claim on the
basis that the use of the Document was a breach of the Riddick principle. The
striking out application was dismissed. The Defendants then raised this as a
preliminary point for determination on the first day of trial.
The Issue
The sole preliminary issue before the Singapore High Court was whether the
Riddick principle ceases to apply once the Document has been used in open
court.
The Court's Decision
The Singapore High Court found that the Riddick principle ceases to apply
once a document has been used in open court. Although an application may
be made for the Riddick principle to continue, the Defendants had not done so
in this case before the Document was used in open court. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff was entitled to use the Document in the present proceedings.
In arriving at its decision, the High Court first reviewed the Singapore
authorities, and found that none of the local cases had decided on the specific
issue before the court. Accordingly, the High Court examined the respective
positions in England, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, and New Zealand.
After examining the various positions, the High Court held that the Riddick
principle ceases to apply once a document has been used in open court. In
doing so, the High Court adopted the minority reasoning in the English case
Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280, and
found that this position is consistent with the route by which most common law
jurisdictions have adopted, either through the common law or by statutory
changes.
However, the High Court pointed out that even though the Riddick principle
ceases to apply once the documents have been used in open court, it does
not prevent a party from applying to court in order for the undertaking to
continue.
Conclusion
A party to an action should be mindful that any document disclosed in the
process of discovery may, once it has been used in open court, be used by
the other party to the litigation for a collateral or ulterior purpose, for example,
as evidence in another set of proceedings.
If it is important for a party to restrict or prohibit the use of such documents,
the party should make an application to the court for such an order, before the
document has been read or used in open court.
©2015 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow is a member of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common
terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a “partner” means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an “office” means an office of any such law firm.
This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
2 February 2015