Riddick
Search results
Jan 19, 2023 · The Riddick undertaking states that a party who discloses a document in discovery under compulsion, in any particular action, is entitled to the protection of the court against any use of the document otherwise than in that action.
The Riddick principle has no application to documents that have been voluntarily disclosed. In determining whether the discovery was voluntary or otherwise, the court must examine the context in which the disclosure was made.
Aug 3, 2021 · 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 ...
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.
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.
May 11, 2020 · The Riddick principle is an essential and integral part of the discovery process in Singapore. But what happens where a plaintiff uncovers documents which allude to serious criminal wrongdoing by the defendant?
