ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd: Anti-Suit Injunction & Document Use

In ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the defendant's application for an injunction against the plaintiff's use of documents disclosed in Singapore proceedings and an anti-suit injunction to prevent the plaintiff from continuing legal action in England. The court granted the injunction against the use of documents, citing abuse of process and breach of implied undertaking, but refused the anti-suit injunction, finding that Singapore was not clearly the natural forum. The plaintiff's appeal against the injunction on document use was allowed, while the defendant's appeal against the denial of the anti-suit injunction was dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Injunction granted against the plaintiff's use of documents and information disclosed in Originating Summons No 533 of 2017 in proceedings outside of Singapore; anti-suit injunction to restrain the English proceedings against the defendant was not granted.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court refuses anti-suit injunction against ED&F Man but enjoins use of disclosed documents in English proceedings, citing abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ED&F Man Capital Markets LtdPlaintiff, RespondentCorporationInjunction granted against use of documents and information disclosed in OS 533 in proceedings outside of Singapore, Anti-suit injunction not grantedPartial, LostPrakash Pillai, Koh Junxiang, Charis Toh Si Ying
Straits (Singapore) Pte LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationInjunction granted against Plaintiff, Anti-suit injunction not grantedWon, LostToh Kian Sing SC, Ting Yong Hong, Davis Tan Yong Chuan, Wang Yufei

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Aedit AbdullahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Prakash PillaiClasis LLC
Koh JunxiangClasis LLC
Charis Toh Si YingClasis LLC
Toh Kian Sing SCRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Ting Yong HongRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Davis Tan Yong ChuanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Wang YufeiRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sought pre-action discovery from Defendant in Singapore (OS 533) related to forged warehouse receipts.
  2. Defendant disclosed documents in OS 533 to resist Plaintiff's application.
  3. Plaintiff commenced action in England against Hong Kong companies and later joined Defendant.
  4. Defendant applied for injunctions: against use of disclosed documents and an anti-suit injunction.
  5. The contracts between the plaintiff and the Hong Kong Companies were subject to exclusive English jurisdiction.

5. Formal Citations

  1. ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 533 of 2017 (Summons No 1087 of 2019), [2019] SGHC 203

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Originating Summons No 533 of 2017 filed.
Nicholas James Patrick Riley’s 2nd affidavit affirmed.
Ms. He Yuzhen Sherraine filed an affidavit.
Plaintiff commenced an action in England.
The Hong Kong Companies filed a defence.
Plaintiff joined additional parties, including the defendant, to the English action.
Wang Yufei’s affidavit sworn.
Plaintiff’s submissions dated.
Defendant’s submissions dated.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Defendant's jurisdictional challenge in the English proceedings was scheduled to be heard.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff's use of documents disclosed in Singapore pre-action proceedings in foreign proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Use of pre-action disclosure for purposes outside Singapore proceedings
      • Disregard of statutory objective
  2. Riddick Principle
    • Outcome: The court applied the Riddick principle to restrict the plaintiff's use of documents disclosed in OS 533, finding that the disclosures were not voluntary and the open court exception did not apply.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Implied undertaking not to use documents obtained on compulsion of court process for other purposes
      • Voluntary disclosure exception
      • Open court exception
  3. Anti-Suit Injunction
    • Outcome: The court declined to grant an anti-suit injunction, finding that Singapore was not clearly the natural forum and vexation and oppression were not sufficiently established.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Natural forum
      • Vexation and oppression
      • Delay in seeking injunction

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction against use of documents
  2. Anti-suit injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Unlawful means conspiracy
  • Liability to account as constructive trustee
  • Knowing receipt

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Riddick v Thames Board Mills LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1977] QB 881EnglandCited for the principle that protects disclosures of documents and information made under compulsion of court process from collateral use.
Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 208SingaporeCited for the principle that the Singapore court only has jurisdiction to order pre-action disclosure in aid of Singapore proceedings.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2017] 4 SLR 684SingaporeCited for the requirement that the applicant adduce “credible evidence of a Singapore nexus”.
Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd and another v Koh Chye HengSingapore High CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 526SingaporeCited in relation to the Riddick principle.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and othersSingapore High CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited in relation to the Riddick principle.
BNX v BOE and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 215SingaporeCited to explain the Riddick principle and its application to voluntarily disclosed documents.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AGSingapore High CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 555SingaporeCited to explain the Riddick principle.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd and anotherEnglish High CourtYes[1991] 1 WLR 756EnglandCited to explain the implied undertaking to the court.
Microsoft Corp and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appealsSingapore High CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 465SingaporeCited in relation to the Riddick principle.
Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (No 2)England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division)YesThe Times (20 October 1988)EnglandCited for the principle that voluntary disclosure of documents does not come within the implied undertaking relating to documents disclosed on discovery.
Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim and anotherSingapore High CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 578SingaporeIntroduced an exception to the Riddick principle, holding that the principle ceased to apply to a document disclosed during discovery in a prior suit once it has been used in open court.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and othersSingapore Court of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR (R) 428SingaporeLaid down the guidance on the specific factors relevant to the determination of whether to grant an anti-suit injunction.
Société Nationale Industrielle AeroSpatiale v Lee Kui Jak and anotherPrivy CouncilYes[1987] 1 AC 871United KingdomCited for the notions of vexation and oppression should not be restricted by definition.
Peruvian Guano Co v BockwoldtEnglish Court of AppealYes(1883) 23 Ch D 225EnglandRaised two examples of vexatious proceedings.
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 732SingaporeComity considerations are relevant where there is delay in bringing an application for anti-suit relief.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AGSingapore High CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 96SingaporeThe longer the delay and the more advanced the foreign court proceedings become, the stronger the considerations of comity.
Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak HernSingapore High CourtYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 851SingaporeThe natural forum is “that with which the action has the most real and substantial connection”.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von UexkullSingapore High CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeClaims against the defendant would be governed by Singapore law as Singapore was the lex loci delicti, ie, the place of the alleged tort.
Harman v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentHouse of LordsYes[1983] 1 AC 280United KingdomThe majority held that the Riddick principle continued to apply to documents used in open court but not to transcripts of court proceedings that might capture the documents in question.
Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd and othersSingapore High CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR (R) 457SingaporeThe court should grant an anti-suit injunction to protect its own jurisdiction and to give effect to its orders.
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) PteSingapore High CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 39SingaporeAn applicant cannot be “on a fishing expedition” and cannot use pre-action discovery to uncover further causes of action.
Ng Giok Oh v Sajjad AkhtarSingapore High CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 375SingaporeAn applicant cannot be “on a fishing expedition” and cannot use pre-action discovery to uncover further causes of action.
Tan Chi Min v The Royal Bank of Scotland plcSingapore High CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 529SingaporeThe principle of open justice requires that decisions by judges (and Registrars) in court proceedings be amenable to scrutiny by members of the public through the inspection of documents filed in court that were considered in the decision-making process.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Pre-action disclosure
  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Riddick principle
  • Abuse of process
  • Natural forum
  • Vexation and oppression
  • Implied undertaking
  • Open court principle

15.2 Keywords

  • Injunction
  • Anti-suit
  • Disclosure
  • Abuse of process
  • Singapore
  • England

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions
  • Conflict of Laws

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions
  • Anti-suit injunctions