Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R.L.: Legal Professional Privilege & Confidentiality after Data Breach

In Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R.L., the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Wee Shuo Woon against the decision to expunge references to certain emails from his affidavit. These emails, containing privileged communications between HT S.R.L. and its lawyers, were obtained after HT S.R.L.'s computer systems were hacked and the data uploaded to WikiLeaks. Wee sought to use these emails in his defense against HT S.R.L.'s claim for breach of contract and fiduciary duties and his counterclaim for unpaid salary. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the emails retained their confidential status and were protected by legal professional privilege, despite their presence on the internet. The court also found no evidence of iniquitous conduct by HT S.R.L. that would justify refusing to exercise its equitable jurisdiction.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the expunging of emails obtained via hacking. The court upheld legal professional privilege and confidentiality despite the emails being uploaded to WikiLeaks.

1.7 Decision Date

29 March 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
HT SRL	Respondent, Plaintiff	Corporation	Appeal Upheld	Won	Hari Veluri of Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC Adrian Tan Gim Hai of Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC Yeoh Jean Wern of Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC
Wee Shuo Woon	Appellant, Defendant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Nicholas Philip Lazarus of Justicius Law Corporation Elizabeth Toh of Justicius Law Corporation

3. Judges

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

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Hari Veluri	Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC
Adrian Tan Gim Hai	Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC
Yeoh Jean Wern	Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC
Nicholas Philip Lazarus	Justicius Law Corporation
Elizabeth Toh	Justicius Law Corporation

4. Facts

HT, an Italian security technology company, employed Wee as a Security Specialist.
Wee resigned from HT and subsequently joined a competitor company, ReaQta.
HT sued Wee for breach of contract and fiduciary duties, alleging he worked for ReaQta without consent.
HT's computer systems were hacked, and data, including emails between HT and its lawyers, was uploaded to WikiLeaks.
Wee accessed the emails on WikiLeaks and used them in an affidavit to strike out HT's claim.
HT sought to expunge the references to the emails from Wee's affidavit, arguing they were privileged and confidential.
The emails contained legal advice and information pertaining to HT's suit against Wee.

5. Formal Citations

Wee Shuo Woon v HT S.R.L., Civil Appeal No 40 of 2016, [2017] SGCA 23

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-08-17	Wee Shuo Woon employed as HT’s Security Specialist
2015-01-20	Wee tendered his notice of resignation
2015-03-20	Wee's employment with HT came to an end
2015-05-20	HT commenced Suit No 489 of 2015 against Wee
2015-06-15	Wee filed his defence and counterclaim
2015-07-07	HT’s computer systems were hacked
2015-07-07	Data extracted from HT’s systems was uploaded onto WikiLeaks
2015-07-07	Wee accessed WikiLeaks and located the Emails
2015-07-07	Wee filed Summons No 3852 of 2015
2015-07-07	HT filed Summons No 3990 of 2015
2016-11-18	Court hearing
2017-03-30	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Legal Professional Privilege
- Outcome: The court held that the emails retained legal professional privilege despite being uploaded to WikiLeaks.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Waiver of privilege
  - Confidentiality of privileged information
Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court held that the emails retained their confidential status despite being accessible on WikiLeaks, and imposed an obligation of confidentiality on Wee.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Public domain exception
  - Equitable duty of confidentiality
Inherent Discretion to Exclude Evidence
- Outcome: The court noted its tentative view that it has an inherent discretion to exclude evidence in civil proceedings but did not fully address the issue.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Injunction to restrain Wee from seeking employment with any of HT’s competitors and from soliciting business from HT’s clients
Damages for breach of Wee’s employment contract and fiduciary duties

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Data Breach Litigation

11. Industries

Technology
Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Calcraft v Guest	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1898] 1 QB 759	England and Wales	Cited for the proposition that secondary evidence of documents may be admissible even if the originals were privileged from production, but this does not affect the court’s equitable jurisdiction to restrain their publication if they contain confidential material which has been improperly obtained.
Lord Ashburton v Pape	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1913] 2 Ch 469	England and Wales	Cited for the court's equitable jurisdiction to restrain the publication of confidential information that was improperly obtained, even if copies exist.
Webster v James Chapman & Co	N/A	Yes	[1989] 3 All ER 939	N/A	Cited to clarify the distinction between legal professional privilege, admissibility of evidence, and the law of confidentiality.
Goddard and another v Nationwide Building Society	N/A	Yes	[1986] 3 WLR 734	N/A	Cited for the principle that a litigant may use copies of privileged documents as secondary evidence, but the court can restrain the use of such documents to prevent a breach of confidence if they have not yet been used in that way.
Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd v Multiple Granite Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 42	Singapore	Cited for the principle that privileged material exhibited in an affidavit filed in respect of an application, which has yet to be heard, has not formally been admitted into evidence.
Gelatissimo Ventures (S) Pte Ltd and others v Singapore Flyer Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 883	Singapore	Cited to clarify the distinction between legal professional privilege, admissibility of evidence, and the law of confidentiality.
Mykytowych, Pamela Jane v V I P Hotel	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 829	Singapore	Cited for affirming principles regarding legal professional privilege, admissibility of evidence, and the law of confidence.
Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers (No 2)	House of Lords	Yes	[1990] 1 AC 109	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that equity imposes a duty of confidence whenever a person receives information he knows or ought to know to be fairly and reasonably regarded as confidential, even if the document is dropped in a public place.
Campbell v MGN Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[2004] 2 AC 457	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that equity imposes a duty of confidence whenever a person receives information he knows or ought to know to be fairly and reasonably regarded as confidential.
Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 QB 125	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that once information is in the public domain, it will no longer be confidential or entitled to the protection of the law of confidence, though this may not always be true.
Creation Records Ltd and others v News Group Newspapers Ltd	English High Court	Yes	(1997) 39 IPR 1	England and Wales	Cited to illustrate that the words “public domain” do not appear to connote that the confidential information lost its confidential character because it was so publicly accessible and/or accessed.
Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 208	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the law of confidentiality is designed to protect confidences or secrets, and the essence of such is that they are not publicly known.
Attorney-General v Greater Manchester Newspapers Ltd	English High Court	Yes	[2001] EWHC 530 (QB)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that accessibility to the general public of Government statistical information is, in the present context, theoretical and therefore not generally accessible to the public.
O. Mustad & Son v Dosen (Note)	N/A	Yes	[1964] 1 W.L.R. 109	N/A	Cited for the principle that that which has no character of confidentiality because it has already been communicated to the world, i.e., made generally available to the relevant public, cannot thereafter be subjected to a right of confidentiality.
Franchi v. Franchi	N/A	Yes	[1967] R.P.C. 149	N/A	Cited for the principle that if the information has previously been disclosed to a limited part of the public, it is a question of degree whether it can be subjected to a right of confidentiality.
Seet Melvin v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR(R) 186	Singapore	Cited for the principle that, as a general rule, until and unless privilege has been waived, a document once privileged is always privileged.
ITC Film Distributors Ltd v Video Exchange Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1982] Ch 431	N/A	Cited for the principle that public policy requires that a litigant should not be permitted to make use of a copy of a privileged document which he has obtained by stealth, trickery or by otherwise acting improperly.
Derby & Co Ltd and others v Weldon and others (No 8)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] 1 WLR 73	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court has power to intervene for the protection of the mistaken party by the grant of an injunction in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction if the other party or his solicitor either (a) has procured inspection of the relevant document by fraud, or (b) on inspection, realises that he has been permitted to see the document only by reason of an obvious mistake.
Initial Services Ltd v Putterill and another	N/A	Yes	[1968] 1 QB 396	N/A	Cited for the principle that “there is no confidence as to the disclosure of iniquity”.
ANB v ANC and another and another matter	N/A	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 522	Singapore	Cited for the “tentative” view that the court has an inherent discretion to exclude evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings and that there are good reasons why this discretion should be exercised in a robust manner in civil proceedings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Evidence Act	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Legal professional privilege
Confidentiality
Data breach
Hacking
WikiLeaks
Equitable jurisdiction
Public domain
Iniquity
Expunge
Statement of claim
Affidavit

15.2 Keywords

privilege
confidentiality
data breach
hacking
wikileaks
singapore
court of appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Legal Privilege	90
Obligation of confidentiality	80
Civil Practice	75
Fiduciary Duties	50
Contract Law	40

16. Subjects

Privilege
Confidentiality
Civil Procedure
Data Security