Obegi Melissa v Vestwin Trading: Breach of Confidence & Conversion of Discarded Documents

The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard a consolidated appeal in *Obegi Melissa and Others v Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and Another*. The case concerned claims of breach of confidence and conversion of documents obtained from discarded rubbish. The High Court had granted summary judgment in favor of Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and Hill Tree Enterprise Pte Ltd. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that there were triable issues of fact and law regarding abandonment, conversion, and breach of confidence. The court set aside the High Court's decision and granted the appellants leave to defend.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding breach of confidence and conversion claims. Court allowed appeal, finding triable issues regarding abandoned documents and confidentiality.

1.7 Decision Date

27 January 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP	Appellant	Limited Liability Partnership	Appeal Allowed	Won	Cham Shan Jie Mark of Kenneth Tan Partnership Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership
OCM Opportunities Fund III, LP	Appellant	Limited Liability Partnership	Appeal Allowed	Won	Cham Shan Jie Mark of Kenneth Tan Partnership Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership
Columbia/HCA Master Retirement Trust	Appellant	Trust	Appeal Allowed	Won	Cham Shan Jie Mark of Kenneth Tan Partnership Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership
Gramercy Emerging Markets Fund	Appellant	Other	Appeal Allowed	Won	Cham Shan Jie Mark of Kenneth Tan Partnership Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership
Obegi Melissa	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Cham Shan Jie Mark of Kenneth Tan Partnership Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership
Oaktree Capital Management LLC	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Cham Shan Jie Mark of Kenneth Tan Partnership Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership
Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Cham Shan Jie Mark of Kenneth Tan Partnership Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership
Gramercy Advisors LLC	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Cham Shan Jie Mark of Kenneth Tan Partnership Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership
Tang Boon Swa	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Cham Shan Jie Mark of Kenneth Tan Partnership Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership
Nemesis Investigations Pte Ltd	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Cham Shan Jie Mark of Kenneth Tan Partnership Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership
Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Vinodh Coomaraswamy of Shook Lin & Bok Georgina Lum Baoling of Shook Lin & Bok
Hill Tree Enterprise Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Vinodh Coomaraswamy of Shook Lin & Bok Georgina Lum Baoling of Shook Lin & Bok

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Sek Keong	Chief Justice	No
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
V K Rajah	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Cham Shan Jie Mark	Kenneth Tan Partnership
Kenneth Tan	Kenneth Tan Partnership
Vinodh Coomaraswamy	Shook Lin & Bok
Georgina Lum Baoling	Shook Lin & Bok

4. Facts

Respondents claimed breach of confidence and conversion of confidential documents.
Documents were retrieved from rubbish bags discarded by the respondents.
Documents were exhibited in affidavits filed in a prior suit.
The prior suit involved enforcing a judgment against PT Indah Kiat.
The respondents were believed to be owned by the same family as Indah Kiat.
A Mareva injunction was obtained based on the documents.
The ninth appellant retrieved the documents from the respondents' rubbish.

5. Formal Citations

Obegi Melissa and Others v Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and Another, CA 25/2006, 33/2006, 45/2006, [2008] SGCA 4

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-01	Suit No 632 of 2004 filed by the third to seventh appellants against PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Corporation.
2005-06-27	Default judgment obtained against Indah Kiat in Suit No 632 of 2004.
2005-07-08	Mareva injunction obtained to restrain Indah Kiat from disposing of assets.
2005-07-26	Writ of summons filed.
2005-08-01	Writ served on the third to seventh appellants.
2005-08-12	First and second appellants served out of jurisdiction by substituted service.
2005-08-22	Third to seventh appellants entered appearance.
2005-08-31	Writ and statement of claim amended to add the ninth and tenth appellants.
2005-09-02	First and second appellants entered appearance.
2005-09-12	Ninth and tenth appellants entered appearance.
2005-09-15	Third to seventh appellants filed their joint defence.
2005-09-23	Defence of the ninth and tenth appellants filed.
2005-10-31	Eighth appellant served out of jurisdiction via personal service.
2005-11-02	Defence of the first and second appellants filed.
2005-11-23	Eighth appellant entered its appearance.
2005-12-05	Defence of the eighth appellant filed.
2005-12-20	Respondents filed a summary judgment application.
2008-01-28	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court found that there were triable issues as to whether the elements of breach of confidence were met.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1969] RPC 41
Conversion
- Outcome: The court found that there were triable issues as to whether the appellants could be held liable for conversion or theft.
- Category: Substantive
Abandonment
- Outcome: The court found that there were triable issues as to whether the documents had been abandoned by the respondents.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - (1981) 121 DLR (3d) 709
  - (1957) 41 Cr App Rep 5
Extension of Time for Summary Judgment Application
- Outcome: The court held that the time limit in Order 14 rule 14 is not absolute and may be extended by the court.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2004] 4 SLR 305
Close of Pleadings in Multiparty Action
- Outcome: The court held that in multi-defendant proceedings, pleadings are deemed to be closed according to the respective dates on which each defence or each reply is served.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2005] 2 SLR 773
  - [1998] 1 WLR 1123

8. Remedies Sought

Permanent Injunction
Mandatory Injunction
Inquiry into Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Confidence
Conversion

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd v Obegi Melissa	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR 573	Singapore	Cited as the decision of the High Court judge in the present suit, which is being appealed.
Simpson v Gowers	N/A	Yes	(1981) 121 DLR (3d) 709	Canada	Cited for the definition of 'abandonment' as 'a giving up, a total desertion, and absolute relinquishment' of private goods by the former owner.
Williams v Phillips	N/A	Yes	(1957) 41 Cr App Rep 5	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that putting rubbish out for collection is not abandonment because there is no intent to relinquish the goods absolutely but only conditionally for the purpose of such collection.
Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1969] RPC 41	N/A	Cited for the three elements essential to an action for breach of confidence.
Sumikin Bussan Corp v Hiew Teck Seng	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR 773	Singapore	Cited for the view that pleadings would be deemed to be closed vis-à-vis each defendant by reference to the date on which that defendant filed its defence.
Bannister v SGB Plc	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 WLR 1123	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that if all the original defendants deliver a defence the trigger date is calculated from the date the last defence was delivered.
United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Lip Hiong	High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR 305	Singapore	Cited for the High Court's decision on whether the time bar in Order 14 rule 14 is an absolute one and may not be extended by the court.
Samsung Corp v Chinese Chamber Realty Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR 382	Singapore	Cited for the principle that no court should arrogate unto itself a power to act contrary to the Rules.
Brill v City of New York	N/A	Yes	2 NY 3d 648 (2004)	United States	Cited for the principle that to show that there is 'good cause' to extend time, the party seeking an extension must establish a satisfactory reason for its delay in applying for summary judgment.
Lim & Tan Securities Pte v Sunbird Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 258	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the novelty of the legal issues and also the uncertainty of the factual issues warranted a full trial in that case.
Tat Lee Securities Pte Ltd v Tsang Tsang Kwong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Order 14 rule 12 procedure is not appropriate where the law relating to the issues in dispute is unclear and more evidence is needed before those issues can be satisfactorily determined.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Breach of Confidence
Conversion
Abandonment
Summary Judgment
Mareva Injunction
Confidential Documents
Close of Pleadings
Extension of Time
Triable Issues
Multiparty Action

15.2 Keywords

breach of confidence
conversion
abandonment
summary judgment
singapore
court of appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Breach of Confidence	85
Civil Practice	70
Summary Judgement	60
Jurisdiction	40
Property Law	30
Contracts	30
Evidence	30
Property Damage	20
Commercial Disputes	20
Breach of Contract	20
Contract Law	20
Fraud and Deceit	10
Professional Liability	10
Asset Recovery	10
Criminal Procedure	10
Property Insurance	10
Administrative Law	10
Arbitration	10

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Tort
Jurisdiction