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 Appeal1.2 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
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obegi Melissa | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kenneth Tan, Cham Shan Jie Mark |
| Oaktree Capital Management LLC | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kenneth Tan, Cham Shan Jie Mark |
| Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kenneth Tan, Cham Shan Jie Mark |
| OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP | Appellant | Partnership | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kenneth Tan, Cham Shan Jie Mark |
| OCM Opportunities Fund III, LP | Appellant | Partnership | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kenneth Tan, Cham Shan Jie Mark |
| Columbia/HCA Master Retirement Trust | Appellant | Trust | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kenneth Tan, Cham Shan Jie Mark |
| Gramercy Emerging Markets Fund | Appellant | Other | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kenneth Tan, Cham Shan Jie Mark |
| Gramercy Advisors LLC | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kenneth Tan, Cham Shan Jie Mark |
| Tang Boon Swa | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kenneth Tan, Cham Shan Jie Mark |
| Nemesis Investigations Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kenneth Tan, Cham Shan Jie Mark |
| Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Vinodh Coomaraswamy, Georgina Lum Baoling |
| Hill Tree Enterprise Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Vinodh Coomaraswamy, Georgina Lum Baoling |
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 |
|---|---|
| Kenneth Tan | Kenneth Tan Partnership |
| Cham Shan Jie Mark | 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 |
|---|---|
| Suit No 632 of 2004 filed by the third to seventh appellants against PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Corporation. | |
| Default judgment obtained against Indah Kiat in Suit No 632 of 2004. | |
| Mareva injunction obtained to restrain Indah Kiat from disposing of assets. | |
| Writ of summons filed. | |
| Writ served on the third to seventh appellants. | |
| First and second appellants served out of jurisdiction by substituted service. | |
| Third to seventh appellants entered appearance. | |
| Writ and statement of claim amended to add the ninth and tenth appellants. | |
| First and second appellants entered appearance. | |
| Ninth and tenth appellants entered appearance. | |
| Third to seventh appellants filed their joint defence. | |
| Defence of the ninth and tenth appellants filed. | |
| Eighth appellant served out of jurisdiction via personal service. | |
| Defence of the first and second appellants filed. | |
| Eighth appellant entered its appearance. | |
| Defence of the eighth appellant filed. | |
| Respondents filed a summary judgment application. | |
| 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
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Tort
- Jurisdiction
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
- Breach of Confidence
- Statutory Interpretation
- Rules of Court
- Courts and Jurisdiction