ANB v ANC: Breach of Confidence & Surreptitious Data Copying in Divorce Proceedings

In ANB v ANC, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the decision of the High Court to set aside an interim injunction. The injunction had restrained ANC and her law firm from using information copied from ANB's computer during divorce proceedings. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on 21 August 2015, granting an interlocutory injunction, finding a serious question of breach of confidence. The parties later reached a settlement, but the court issued grounds of decision due to the importance of the legal issues.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding breach of confidence for surreptitiously copied data in divorce. The court allowed the appeal, granting an interlocutory injunction.

1.7 Decision Date

20 August 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
ANB	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Edmund Kronenburg of Braddell Brothers LLP Lynette Zheng of Braddell Brothers LLP
ANC	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Thian Wen Yi of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Sunil Nair of Harry Elias Partnership LLP S Suressh of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Nicklaus Tan of Harry Elias Partnership LLP
AND	Respondent	Law Firm	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Thian Wen Yi of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Sunil Nair of Harry Elias Partnership LLP S Suressh of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Nicklaus Tan of Harry Elias Partnership LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Edmund Kronenburg	Braddell Brothers LLP
Lynette Zheng	Braddell Brothers LLP
Thian Wen Yi	Harry Elias Partnership LLP
Sunil Nair	Harry Elias Partnership LLP
S Suressh	Harry Elias Partnership LLP
Nicklaus Tan	Harry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

Appellant and 1st Respondent were husband and wife involved in divorce proceedings.
1st Respondent moved out of the matrimonial home on 26 September 2012.
1st Respondent returned to the matrimonial home on 18 December 2012 and found Appellant’s computer.
1st Respondent copied data from the Appellant's computer with the help of a private investigator.
The copied data was intended for use in the divorce proceedings.
Appellant discovered the copying when 1st Respondent attempted to adduce the information as evidence.
The Appellant commenced proceedings claiming breach of confidence.

5. Formal Citations

ANB v ANC and another and another matter, Civil Appeal No 115 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 43
ANB v ANC and another, , [2014] 4 SLR 747

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-09-26	1st Respondent moved out of the matrimonial home.
2012-10-10	Divorce proceedings commenced by the 1st Respondent.
2012-12-18	1st Respondent returned to the matrimonial home and copied data from Appellant’s computer.
2015-08-21	Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted an interlocutory injunction.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court found that there was a serious question to be tried as to whether there was a breach of confidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Surreptitious procurement of information
  - Reasonable expectation of privacy
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 4 SLR 747
  - [1992] 2 SLR(R) 575
  - [2011] Fam 116
  - [1969] RPC 41
  - [1990] 1 AC 109
Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome: The court granted an interlocutory injunction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Balance of convenience
  - Serious question to be tried
- Related Cases:
  - [1975] AC 396
Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court did not make a final pronouncement on this issue, reserving it for a future case.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Exclusionary discretion
  - Propriety of conduct in obtaining evidence
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239
  - [2011] 3 SLR 1205

8. Remedies Sought

Interim Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Confidence

10. Practice Areas

Divorce Litigation
Injunctions
Family Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
ANB v ANC and another	High Court	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 747	Singapore	The decision from which this appeal arose. The High Court Judge set aside an interim injunction previously granted at the ex parte stage in favour of the Appellant.
X Pte Ltd and another v CDE	Singapore High Court	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR(R) 575	Singapore	Cited in relation to whether the information possessed the necessary quality of confidence.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1975] AC 396	England	Cited for the test applicable to the granting of an interlocutory injunction.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis	Court of 3 Judges	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239	Singapore	Cited in relation to whether the Singapore courts had discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence.
Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor	Court of 3 Judges	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 1205	Singapore	Cited for holding that a court retained a discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence if the prejudicial effect of that evidence towards a party exceeded its probative value.
Imerman v Tchenguiz and others	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] Fam 116	England	Cited as a principal precedent on which the Appellant had relied on in establishing his case that there had been a breach of confidence.
Lim and Tan Securities Pte v Sunbird Pte Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 776	Singapore	Cited with approval in Obegi Melissa for the principle that novel and difficult questions of law are to be properly dealt with at trial.
Obegi Melissa and others v Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and another	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 540	Singapore	Cited for the principle that novel and difficult questions of law are to be properly dealt with at trial.
Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd	English High Court	Yes	[1969] RPC 41	England	Cited for the formulation of the test for breach of confidence.
Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] QB 125	England	Cited in relation to the protection of private information.
Campbell v MGN Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[2004] 2 AC 457	England	Cited for the question of whether the plaintiff had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in relation to that information.
Attorney-General v Observer Ltd and others	House of Lords	Yes	[1990] 1 AC 109	England	Cited as the first authoritative extension of the law of confidence to information obtained without the consent of the plaintiff.
Cream Holdings Ltd and others v Bangerjee and another	House of Lords	Yes	[2005] 1 AC 253	England	Cited for the observation that confidentiality, once breached, is lost forever.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (No 26 of 2012)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Breach of Confidence
Interlocutory Injunction
Surreptitious Copying
Divorce Proceedings
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Exclusionary Discretion
Balance of Convenience

15.2 Keywords

breach of confidence
interlocutory injunction
divorce
data copying
privacy

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Breach of Confidence	95
Injunctions	70
Family Law	60
Evidence	50

16. Subjects

Family Law
Confidentiality
Data Protection
Civil Procedure