Ser Kim Koi v William Merrell Fulton: Release of Implied Undertaking under Riddick Principle
In Ser Kim Koi and Another v William Merrell Fulton and Others, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the plaintiffs, Ser Kim Koi and Ser Song Cheh, to release an implied undertaking under the Riddick principle. The plaintiffs sought to use documents disclosed by the defendants—William Merrell Fulton, Anurag Mathur, Stephen King Chang-Min, and Thio Shen Yi—in Suit 427/2006 for the purpose of a related action, Suit 668/2006. The court partially allowed the application, releasing the undertaking for specific documents disclosed by the second to fourth defendants but dismissing it for documents disclosed by the first defendant, as Metalform Asia Pte Ltd, who also disclosed the documents, was not a party to the application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application partially allowed; implied undertaking released for specific documents disclosed by the second to fourth defendants, but dismissed for documents disclosed by the first defendant.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to release implied undertaking under Riddick principle to use discovered documents in a related suit was partially allowed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ser Kim Koi | Plaintiff | Individual | Application partially allowed | Partial | Derek Kang |
| Ser Song Cheh | Plaintiff | Individual | Application partially allowed | Partial | Derek Kang |
| William Merrell Fulton | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed in part | Dismissed | Khoo Boo Jin |
| Anurag Mathur | Defendant | Individual | Application partially allowed | Partial | Chua Sui Tong |
| Stephen King Chang-Min | Defendant | Individual | Application partially allowed | Partial | Chua Sui Tong |
| Thio Shen Yi | Defendant | Individual | Application partially allowed | Partial | Chua Sui Tong |
| Metalform Asia Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Teo Guan Siew | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Derek Kang | Thng |
| Khoo Boo Jin | Tan Suan Boon |
| Chua Sui Tong | Cheng |
4. Facts
- The Sers commenced action against MFA and its directors and officers.
- The Sers were directors and shareholders of HL, whose business and assets were transferred to MFA in 2004.
- The Sers ended up with 49% control of the ultimate holding company of MFA.
- CCMP Capital Asia Pte Ltd had the majority 51% control through another Mauritius holding company.
- The Sers allege that MFA had been insolvent since December 2005.
- HL brought a claim against certain directors and officers of MFA.
- The Sers were brought in to S 668/2006 as third parties.
5. Formal Citations
- Ser Kim Koi and Another v William Merrell Fulton and Others, Suit 427/2006, SUM 4677/2008, [2009] SGHC 5
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MFA purchased steel from HL. | |
| Sers allege MFA had been insolvent since December 2005. | |
| S 427/2006 commenced by the plaintiffs against Metalform Asia Pte Ltd and its directors and officers. | |
| S 668/2006 consists of a claim brought by HL against certain directors and officers of MFA. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Release of Implied Undertaking
- Outcome: The court partially allowed the application, releasing the undertaking for specific documents disclosed by the second to fourth defendants but dismissing it for documents disclosed by the first defendant.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of documents to another suit
- Prejudice to the party who gave discovery
- Public interest in the proper administration of justice
- Related Cases:
- [1977] 1 QB 882
- [2005] 3 SLR 555
8. Remedies Sought
- Release of implied undertaking to use documents in another suit
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riddick v Thames Board Mills | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977] 1 QB 882 | England and Wales | Cited for the rationale behind the Riddick principle, which balances the public interest in discovering the truth in litigation with the interest in safeguarding privacy and confidentiality. |
| Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank of AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 555 | Singapore | Cited for the Singapore Court of Appeal's statement of the Riddick principle and the conditions for releasing the implied undertaking. |
| Alterskye v Scott | N/A | Yes | [1948] 1 All ER 469 | England and Wales | Cited as an early decision where English courts regarded the implied undertaking as operating by means of an implied undertaking by the party seeking discovery. |
| Sim Leng Chua v Manghardt | N/A | Yes | [1987] SLR 205 | Singapore | Cited to show an instance where the Riddick principle was applied to strike out a defamation claim that was based on a document obtained during discovery in an earlier suit. |
| Reebok International Ltd v Royal Corp | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 136 | Singapore | Cited to show that what amounts to exceptional circumstances for the release of implied undertaking would have to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. |
| Sybron Corporation v Barclays Bank Plc | N/A | Yes | [1985] 1 Ch 299 | England and Wales | Cited for guidance on the approach to be adopted by the court when deciding whether to grant leave to refer in a new action to the documents discovered in an earlier action. |
| Crest Homes Plc v Marks | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] 3 WLR 293 | England and Wales | Cited as another instance where the implied undertaking was released by the court, taking into account the countervailing consideration of public policy that orders of court should be obeyed. |
| Halcon International Inc v The Shell Transport and Trading Co | N/A | Yes | [1979] RPC 97 | England and Wales | Cited to show an application that was made for permission to use a bundle of documents disclosed in an English patent action for the purpose of related Dutch proceedings, but was rejected. |
| Anex Electrical Company Limited v Kingsland International Limited | High Court | Yes | [1998] HKCU 352 | Hong Kong | Cited as a case from the High Court of Hong Kong where leave was granted by the court for the plaintiff to use documents, discovered in a Hong Kong action for copyright infringement, for the purposes of another action commenced earlier by the same plaintiff in the US. |
| Patrick v Capital Finance Pty Ltd (No. 3) | Federal Court | Yes | [2003] FCA 436 | Australia | Cited as a decision by the Federal Court of Australia concerning the issue of whether an order for further discovery ought to be made in respect of a letter, that had been earlier disclosed in separate proceedings in the County Court by a bank which was also a party to the Federal Court proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Riddick principle
- Implied undertaking
- Discovery
- Collateral use
- Exceptional circumstances
- Relevance
- Prejudice
- Public interest
- Third party proceedings
15.2 Keywords
- Riddick principle
- implied undertaking
- discovery
- civil procedure
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Implied Undertaking
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Riddick Principle