Rikvin Consultancy v Boparai: Interim Injunction for Defamation & Contract Breach
Rikvin Consultancy Pte Ltd sued Pardeep Singh Boparai and Janus Corporate Solutions in the High Court of Singapore, alleging inducement of breach of contract, defamation, and unfair practices. The case arose from an article and press releases published by the defendants offering services to Rikvin's clients after Rikvin's Managing Director was convicted of offenses under the Companies Act. Choo Han Teck J discharged an interim injunction previously granted to Rikvin, finding that damages would be an adequate remedy and that there were no special circumstances justifying the injunction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The defendants’ application to set aside the injunction order made pursuant to an ex parte application by the plaintiff was allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Rikvin sought an injunction against Janus for defamation and inducing contract breach. The court discharged the injunction, finding damages an adequate remedy.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rikvin Consultancy Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Pardeep Singh Boparai | Defendant | Individual | Application allowed | Won | |
| Janus Corporate Solutions | Defendant | Corporation | Application allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Rikvin and Janus are competitors in corporate secretarial services.
- Rikvin's Managing Director pleaded guilty to charges under the Companies Act.
- Defendants published an article offering services to Rikvin's clients.
- Rikvin sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing the article.
- The defendants contended that the contracts in question provided for early termination.
- The defendants denied that the article or press releases were defamatory.
5. Formal Citations
- Rikvin Consultancy Pte Ltd v Pardeep Singh Boparai and another, Suit No 224 of 2010 (Summons No 1440 and 1465 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 191
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rikvin’s Managing Director, Ms Ragini Dhanvantray, pleaded guilty to three charges under the Companies Act | |
| ACRA issued a press release in respect of this matter | |
| Defendants published the article on the website Guide Me Singapore | |
| Rikvin applied for and was granted an ex-parte application for an interim injunction | |
| Defendants applied to set aside the AR’s orders | |
| Court allowed the defendants’ application to set aside the injunction order |
7. Legal Issues
- Interim Injunction
- Outcome: The court discharged the interim injunction, finding that damages would be an adequate remedy.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1975] AC 396
- Inducement of Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants had good grounds to maintain that there would be no breach of contract if the contract had been lawfully terminated prior to the transfer.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1952] Ch 646
- Defamation
- Outcome: The court noted that in an application for an interlocutory injunction in a defamation action, the jurisdiction of the court must be exercised sparingly and only where it was clear that the statement complained of was libellous and no defence could possibly apply.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 3 SLR(R) 142
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Inducement of Breach of Contract
- Defamation
- Unfair Practices
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Corporate Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Union Traffic Ltd v Transport and General Workers’ Union | English CA | Yes | [1989] ICR 98 | England and Wales | Cited as an example where the court found sufficient evidence for inducement of breaches of contract in an application for an interim injunction, even without supporting contractual documents. |
| Brink’s-Mat v Elcombe | N/A | Yes | [1998] 3 All ER 188 | N/A | Cited for the principle that ex parte applications necessitate some haste in preparation, and the practical realities of preparing such an application cannot be overlooked. |
| Tay Long Kee Impex v Tan Beng Huwah (t/a Sing Kwang Wah) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 786 | Singapore | Affirmed the principle in Brink’s-Mat v Elcombe that ex parte applications necessitate some haste in preparation, and the practical realities of preparing such an application cannot be overlooked. |
| Films Rover International Ltd v Canon Film Sales Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1987] 1 WLR 670 | N/A | Cited for the proposition that the importance lies not in whether the injunction was mandatory or prohibitive, but in what might lead to least irremediable prejudice. |
| National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Olint Corpn Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2009] 1 WLR 1405 | N/A | Cited for the proposition that the importance lies not in whether the injunction was mandatory or prohibitive, but in what might lead to least irremediable prejudice. |
| NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 565 | Singapore | Reiterated that an interim mandatory injunction is a ‘very exceptional discretionary remedy’ and can only be justified by ‘special circumstances’. |
| Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd v Navalmar UK Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 587 | Singapore | Applied the principle of requiring a ‘high degree of assurance’ that at the trial it would appear that an interim mandatory injunction had been rightly granted. |
| Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham | N/A | Yes | [1971] Ch 340 | N/A | Applied the principle of requiring a ‘high degree of assurance’ that at the trial it would appear that an interim mandatory injunction had been rightly granted. |
| American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1975] AC 396 | N/A | Cited for the principles to determine whether to grant an interim injunction: (a)whether there was a serious question to be tried; (b)if there was, whether damages would not be an adequate remedy; and (c)where the balance of convenience lay. |
| D C Thomson & Co Ltd v Deakin | N/A | Yes | [1952] Ch 646 | N/A | Cited for the principle that in a claim under a tort for breach of contract, the plaintiff would have to show that its clients breached their contracts in order to show that it suffered actionable damages. |
| Projector SA v Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 233 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the strength of a party’s case is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for the grant of an interlocutory mandatory injunction. |
| Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures | N/A | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 142 | N/A | Cited for the principle that in an application for an interlocutory injunction in a defamation action, the jurisdiction of the court must be exercised sparingly and only where it was clear that the statement complained of was libellous and no defence could possibly apply. |
| Garden Cottage Foods v Milk Marketing Board | N/A | Yes | [1984] AC 130 | N/A | Cited for the principle that even if the balance of convenience is equal, the court should strive to preserve the status quo, which in the absence of any unreasonable delay between the time of the writ and the application for injunction, has been defined as the state of affairs immediately before the issue of the writ. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act | Singapore |
| Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap 52A, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Interim Injunction
- Ex Parte Application
- Breach of Contract
- Defamation
- Corporate Secretarial Services
- Irremediable Prejudice
- Balance of Convenience
- Status Quo
15.2 Keywords
- injunction
- defamation
- breach of contract
- corporate services
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Inducement of Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Defamation | 70 |
| Injunctions | 65 |
| Commercial Litigation | 60 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Consumer Law | 40 |
| Company Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Injunctions
- Defamation
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure