Riddick
Search results
In Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and other appeals and other matters [2021] SGCA 63, the Singapore Court of Appeal held that the Riddick undertaking (i.e., the implied undertaking that a document disclosed during discovery will not be used for a collateral purpose) would apply to documents disclosed in examination of judgment debtor ...
Jan 19, 2023 · Against this backdrop, the “Riddick undertaking”, first enunciated in Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1977] QB 881 (“Riddick”), refers to an implied undertaking not to use disclosed documents for any collateral purpose.
Jun 29, 2021 · The judge below (“the Judge”) concluded that the appellant’s use of the EJD documents to commence HC/S 47/2020 (“Suit 47”) was an abuse of process in violation of the principle in Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1977] QB 881 (“ Riddick ”). Suit 47 was consequently struck out.
Singapore courts in determining whether related proceedings are “enforcement” proceedings, such that documents disclosed in one set of proceedings may be used in the second proceedings without offending the Riddick principle, and without leave of court: (a) First, the nature of the proceedings in which the documents were disclosed.
- Summary of Decision and Significance
- Background Facts
- Decision
- Principles on The Riddick Undertaking – 3 Categories
- Ejd Documents Are Protected by A Riddick Undertaking
- Suit 47 Is Not A Related Enforcement Proceeding
- Factors Weighing in Favour of Granting Leave
The Riddick principle states that a party who discloses a document in an action under compulsion is entitled to the court’s protection against any use of that document otherwise than in that action. In this case, the Appellant had commenced an examination of judgment debtor (EJD) proceedings against the sole executor of an estate. The Appellant the...
Mdm Lim is the widow of Mr Ong Seng Keng (Mr Ong), and the couple has three sons, Ong Siauw-Tjoan (OST), Ong Siauw Ping (OSP) and Ong Keng Tong. The Appellant, Jane Rebecca Ong, is the estranged wife of OST. Following the couple’s divorce in 1988, the Appellant obtained a maintenance order against OST. OST then assigned to the Appellant half of his...
The main issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Riddick undertaking applied to the EJD documents and if so, whether retrospective leave ought to be granted to lift the undertaking. The Court of Appeal answered both questions in the affirmative. Although the Appellant should have sought prospective leave of court to use the EJD documents...
The Court highlighted that it is important to distinguish between situations where a disclosed document is not subject to the Riddick undertaking and situations where a document protected by the Riddick undertaking can be used in separate proceedings, with or without leave. The Court broadly divided these situations into 3 categories. Underthe firs...
As there was no direct Singapore authority on whether EJD documents are protected, the Court of Appeal first examined the nature of EJD proceedings and held that such proceedings bear an element of compulsion. In EJD proceedings, a judgment debtor is ordered by the court to appear and be examined before the Registrar. He is also compelled to produc...
In applying the factors under the second category, the Court of Appeal held that Suit 47 is not a related “enforcement” proceeding because of several reasons: 1. The defendants in the EJD proceedings and Suit 47 are different. The former is strictly only against the Estate whereas the latter is against OSP personally. 2. The cause of action in Suit...
The Court of Appeal emphasised that the preservation of the integrity of the court’s process is of utmost significance. This is because the Riddick undertaking is ultimately an expression of the doctrine of abuse of process. It aims to prohibit the procurement of documents motivated by a collateral or improper purpose and the subsequent usage of th...
The Riddick Principle. The Riddick principle, which originates from the English decision of Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1977] QB 881, has since been captured in the English Civil Procedure Rules.
Oct 12, 2020 · The Singapore Court of Appeal in the recent case of Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another [2020] SGCA 76 dealt with the prospective and retrospective release of the Riddick undertaking for disclosed documents.
