Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim: Implied Undertaking & Use of Disclosed Documents

In Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim, the Singapore High Court addressed whether the Riddick principle, concerning the use of documents disclosed during discovery, continues to apply once those documents have been used in open court. The plaintiff, Foo Jong Long Dennis, sued the defendants, Ang Yee Lim and another, for deceit, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and breach of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of RTC and EH and for breach of the Singapore Exchange Trading Limited Listing Manual. The plaintiff's case relied heavily on a document disclosed in a prior suit. The court ruled that the Riddick principle does not apply once a document has been used in open court, allowing the trial to proceed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

The court held that the Riddick principle did not apply to the April 14 Minutes and ordered the trial to continue.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case concerning whether an implied undertaking (Riddick principle) applies to documents used in open court. The court ruled it does not.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
AnotherDefendantOtherAppeal against ruling on preliminary issueLost
Foo Jong Long DennisPlaintiffIndividualAllowed to use the document in the current suitWon
Ang Yee LimDefendantIndividualAppeal against ruling on preliminary issueLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Toh Wei YiHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Andy LemHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Harry EliasHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Farrah IsaacHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Tan Chuan ThyeStamford Law Corporation
Kenneth ChuaStamford Law Corporation
Stephany AwStamford Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff and the Defendants were shareholders of Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd, ABR Holdings Limited and Europa Holdings Pte Ltd.
  2. The Defendants furnished a handwritten document in the Chinese language titled “Minutes of Meeting” and dated 14 April 2001.
  3. The 14 April Minutes was referred to and used in open court during the trial for the Year 2006 Suit.
  4. The plaintiff instituted this suit against the Defendants for damages for, inter alia, deceit, misrepresentation, conspiracy and for breach of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of RTC and EH and for breach of the Singapore Exchange Trading Limited Listing Manual.
  5. The 14 April Minutes became crucial to the plaintiff’s claim as it was the main piece of evidence that the plaintiff was relying on to establish the Agreement.
  6. The Defendants raised that the use of the 14 April Minutes was a breach of the Riddick principle.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim and another, Suit No 72 of 2013, [2015] SGHC 23

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Year 2000 Suits instituted
Deed of Settlement executed
RTC instituted Suit No 46 of 2006 against Peter Lim, the plaintiff and the Defendants
Defendants took out an application in Summons No 2757 of 2013 to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Implied Undertaking (Riddick Principle)
    • Outcome: The court held that the Riddick principle does not apply to documents once they have been used in open court.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Use of disclosed documents
      • Collateral purpose
      • Use in open court
    • Related Cases:
      • [1977] QB 881
      • [1983] 1 AC 280
  2. Open Justice
    • Outcome: The court gave deference and recognition to the principle of open justice.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1913] AC 417
      • [2013] 4 SLR 529

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Deceit
  • Misrepresentation
  • Conspiracy
  • Breach of Memorandum and Articles of Association

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Riddick v Thames Board Mills LtdCourt of AppealYes[1977] QB 881EnglandEstablished the Riddick principle regarding implied undertaking not to use documents disclosed during discovery for collateral purposes.
Sim Leng Chua v ManghardtHigh CourtYes[1987] SLR(R) 52SingaporeAccepted and applied the Riddick principle locally.
Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd and another v V C S VardanCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 857SingaporeAccepted and applied the Riddick principle locally.
Business Software Alliance and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 819SingaporeAccepted and applied the Riddick principle locally.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and othersCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeDiscussed the implied undertaking owed to the court and the consequences of its breach.
Sybron Corp v Barclays Bank PlcChancery DivisionYes[1985] Ch 299EnglandAddressed the application of the implied undertaking to third parties and staff of the disclosing party.
Reebok International Ltd v Royal Corp and another actionHigh CourtYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 688SingaporeAcknowledged the court's discretion to release or modify the implied undertaking.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AGCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 555SingaporeDiscussed the conditions for granting leave to be released from the implied undertaking.
Harman v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentHouse of LordsYes[1983] 1 AC 280EnglandAddressed whether the Riddick principle continues to apply to documents used in open court; the majority held that it does.
Scott v ScottHouse of LordsYes[1913] AC 417EnglandEstablished the principle of open justice.
Dian AO v Davis Frankel & Mead (a firm) and another (OOO Alfa-Eco and another intervening)High CourtYes[2005] 1 WLR 2951EnglandSummarized the principle of open justice.
SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories IncUnspecifiedYes[1999] 4 All ER 498EnglandSummarized the impetus for the change in law regarding the Riddick principle after the Harman case.
British American Tobacco Australian Services Ltd v Cowell (No 2)Victorian Court of AppealYes(2003) 8 VR 571AustraliaFollowed the majority approach in Harman.
K & S Corporation Ltd & Anor v Number 1 Betting Shop Ltd & OrsSupreme Court of South AustraliaYes[2005] SASC 228AustraliaDeclined to follow the majority approach in Harman and instead adopted Lord Scarman’s approach.
Uniflex (Australia) Pty Ltd v HanneybelSupreme Court of Western AustraliaYes[2001] WASC 138AustraliaCited Lord Scarman’s approach in Harman with approval.
Suzette F Juman v Jade Kathleen Ledenko DoucetteSupreme Court of CanadaYes[2008] 1 SCR 157CanadaDeclined to follow the majority in Harman.
Allied Group Ltd v Secretary for JusticeHong Kong Court of AppealYes[2003] HKEC 1221Hong KongCriticised the decision of Sybron.
Wilson v WhiteCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 NZLR 619New ZealandDeclined to follow the majority approach in Harman and adopted Lord Scarman’s minority approach.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeExplained the effect of s 3 of the AELA.
Tan Chi Min v The Royal Bank of Scotland plcUnspecifiedYes[2013] 4 SLR 529SingaporeDiscussed the principle of open justice.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page LtdEnglish High CourtYes[1991] 1 WLR 756EnglandElaborated on the implied undertaking owed to the court.
Distillers Co. (Biochemicals) Ltd. v. Times Newspapers Ltd.UnspecifiedYes[1975] Q.B. 613EnglandEstablished that contempts of court can be restrained by injunction.
Bibby Bulk Carriers Ltd v Cansulex Ltd, The CambridgeshireUnspecifiedYes[1988] 2 All ER 820EnglandMentioned in the context of challenging the law established in Home Office v Harman.
Cobra Golf Inc v RataEnglish High CourtYes[1996] FSR 819EnglandProvided a summary of the principles embodied in Riddick.
Taylor and Another v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and OthersHouse of LordsYes[1999] 2 AC 177EnglandAddressed the implied undertaking in the context of criminal proceedings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 24 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 24 r 16 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 No 3132) (UK)
r 31.22 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 No 3132) (UK)
Rule 20.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Australia)
Rule 21.7 of New South Wales’ Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Rules 30.1.01(3)–(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (O Reg 575/07, s 6(1)) (Canada)
O 24 r 14A of the Rules of the High Court (Chapter 4A, GN 25/1998)
Rule 8.30(4) of the Rules of High Court (New Zealand)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Application of English Law Act (Chapter 7A, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Riddick principle
  • Implied undertaking
  • Discovery
  • Open court
  • Collateral purpose
  • 14 April Minutes
  • Year 2006 Suit
  • Open justice

15.2 Keywords

  • Riddick principle
  • Discovery
  • Open court
  • Implied undertaking
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Riddick principle85
Open justice75
Civil Practice70
Evidence60
Contract Law50
Misrepresentation40
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means30
Estoppel25
Company Law20
Corporate Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Litigation
  • Discovery
  • Implied Undertaking
  • Open Justice