ANB v ANC: Illegally Obtained Evidence & Exclusionary Discretion in Civil Proceedings
In ANB v ANC, the Singapore High Court addressed interlocutory matters in a suit involving conversion, trespass, and breach of confidence arising from a divorce proceeding. The plaintiff, ANB (H), sought to prevent the defendant, ANC (W), from using material allegedly obtained surreptitiously from his personal laptop in ongoing Family Court proceedings. Quentin Loh J allowed the defendant's application to set aside an interim injunction, dismissed the plaintiff's application to cross-examine the defendant's computer expert, and dismissed the defendant's appeal against the refusal to strike out portions of the plaintiff's affidavit. The court granted the plaintiff leave to appeal on the point of law regarding the discretion to exclude illegally obtained evidence in civil proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendants’ application to set aside the interim injunction was allowed in part. Plaintiff’s application to cross-examine the defendants’ computer expert and the defendants’ appeal against the refusal of the assistant registrar to strike out certain portions of the plaintiff’s fourth affidavit were dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case concerning the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in divorce proceedings and the court's discretion to exclude such evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Husband and Wife were involved in acrimonious divorce proceedings in the Family Court.
- Wife allegedly surreptitiously copied the contents of Husband's personal laptop while he was on holiday.
- The laptop contained backed-up data from Husband's iPhone, including SMS and WhatsApp messages and voice recordings.
- Wife used a locksmith to gain entry into the matrimonial home to retrieve the laptop.
- A computer expert, Dennis Lee, was engaged to copy the contents of the laptop.
- The copied material included privileged communications between Husband and his lawyers.
- Husband sought an injunction to prevent Wife from using the material in the divorce proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- ANB v ANC and another, Suit No 427 of 2013 (Summons No 2511 of 2013, 5757 of 2013 and Registrar's Appeal No 75 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 172
- ANB v ANC, Civil Appeal No 115 of 2014 and Summons No 3690 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 43
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Wife left the matrimonial home. | |
| Wife commenced divorce proceedings in the Family Court. | |
| Husband backed up his iPhone 4 onto the Asus Notebook. | |
| Husband went to Hong Kong with the children. | |
| Wife retrieved belongings from the matrimonial home and allegedly copied data from the Asus Notebook. | |
| Husband filed a counterclaim in the divorce proceedings. | |
| Wife filed and served four affidavits on Husband. | |
| Husband applied for an injunction in the High Court. | |
| Interim orders made by Coomaraswamy JC. | |
| Standstill agreement reached by counsel and recorded by Coomaraswamy JC. | |
| Plaintiff’s fourth affidavit filed. | |
| High Court discharged the injunction. | |
| Decision Date | |
| Appeal to this decision was allowed by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that there is an exclusionary discretion, stemming from the inherent jurisdiction of the court to prevent injustice at trial, but that it was not applicable in these circumstances.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Exclusionary discretion
- Probative value vs. prejudicial effect
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239
- [2011] 3 SLR 1205
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447
- Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court found that there was no serious question to be tried regarding the breach of confidence claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Quality of confidence
- Obligation of confidence
- Unauthorised use of information
- Related Cases:
- [1992] 2 SLR(R) 575
- [1969] RPC 41
- Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome: The court set aside the injunction, finding that there was no serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favored allowing the material to be used in evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Serious question to be tried
- Balance of convenience
- Related Cases:
- [1975] AC 396
- [2013] 2 SLR 449
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for delivery up
- Damages
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Conversion
- Trespass
- Breach of Confidence
10. Practice Areas
- Divorce
- Family Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Imerman v Tchenguiz and others | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 WLR 592 | N/A | Cited by the plaintiff in support of the application for an injunction. |
| X Pte Ltd and another v CDE | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 575 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiff in support of the application for an injunction; distinguished by the court due to differences in the facts, the relationship between the parties, and the terms of the injunction. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Discussed in detail regarding the admissibility of evidence and the court's discretion to exclude evidence, particularly entrapment evidence. Relied on for the principle that all relevant evidence is admissible unless specifically expressed to be inadmissible. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 377 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Court of Appeal deferred ruling on the admissibility of entrapment evidence, pending the decision in Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Endorsed the view in Phyllis Tan that the Sang principle was consistent with the Evidence Act. Relied on for the principle that the court has the discretion to exclude a voluntary statement where its prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value. |
| Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447 | Singapore | Approved Phyllis Tan, stating that there is no residual discretion to exclude evidence which is otherwise rendered legally relevant by the Evidence Act. |
| Regina v Sang | N/A | Yes | [1980] AC 402 | N/A | Cited for the principle that all relevant evidence is admissible unless its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. |
| R v Christie | N/A | Yes | [1914] AC 545 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the laws of evidence are not enforced with the same rigidity against a person accused of a criminal offence as against a party to a civil action. |
| American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1975] AC 396 | N/A | Cited for the requirements for an interlocutory prohibitory injunction: a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience. |
| UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 153 | Singapore | Applied the principles from American Cyanamid regarding interlocutory injunctions. |
| Maldives Airports Co Ltd and another v GMR Malé International Airport Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Clarified the court's role in conducting the balance of convenience exercise for interlocutory injunctions. |
| Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1991] 1 AC 603 | N/A | Cited regarding the balance of convenience exercise in injunction applications. |
| NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 565 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts will only grant an interim mandatory injunction in clear cases where special circumstances exist. |
| Coco v AN Clarke (Engineers) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1969] RPC 41 | N/A | Cited for the three elements needed to succeed in an action for breach of confidence when there is no contract involved. |
| Coco v AN Clarke (Engineers) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1968] FSR 415 | N/A | Cited for the three elements needed to succeed in an action for breach of confidence when there is no contract involved. |
| Gartside v Outram | N/A | Yes | (1857) 26 LJ Ch 113 | N/A | Cited for the principle that there is no confidence as to the disclosure of iniquity. |
| Stephens v Avery | N/A | Yes | [1988] 1 Ch 449 | N/A | Cited regarding the quality of confidence in information about one's sexual affairs. |
| Public Prosecutor v Dahalan bin Ladaewa | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 124 | N/A | Cited regarding the exclusionary discretion. |
| Gelatissimo Ventures (S) Pte Ltd and others v Singapore Flyer Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 833 | N/A | Cited regarding fraud or crime that may have already been committed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 65, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Illegally obtained evidence
- Exclusionary discretion
- Breach of confidence
- Interlocutory injunction
- Probative value
- Prejudicial effect
- Matrimonial home
- Asus Notebook
- Computer Misuse Act
- Family Court
- Privileged communications
15.2 Keywords
- evidence
- illegally obtained
- injunction
- divorce
- family law
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions