Amber Pharmacy v Lim: Riddick Principle, Document Discovery & Criminal Investigations
In Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and Amber Laboratories Pte Ltd v Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and others, the High Court of Singapore considered whether the plaintiffs could use documents seized from the defendants to report them to law enforcement. The court allowed disclosure of documents related to potential Employment of Foreign Manpower Act offences, balancing public interest in prosecuting crime with protecting the discovery process. The plaintiffs' claims included breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, breach of confidence, conspiracy to injure, and copyright infringement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Implied undertaking modified to permit disclosure of documents revealing potential commission of Employment of Foreign Manpower Act offences.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court clarifies Riddick principle, balancing justice, privacy in disclosing documents for criminal investigations.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priscilla Lim Suk Ling | Defendant | Individual | Application allowed in part | Partial | |
| UrbanRx Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application allowed in part | Partial | |
| Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Implied undertaking modified to permit disclosure of documents revealing potential commission of Employment of Foreign Manpower Act offences | Partial | |
| Amber Laboratories Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Implied undertaking modified to permit disclosure of documents revealing potential commission of Employment of Foreign Manpower Act offences | Partial | |
| Muhammad ‘Ainul Yaqien Bin Mohamed Zin | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Daniel James Tai Hann | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Tee I-Lin Cheryl | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Tan Bo Chuan | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Audrey Lim | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs sued Defendants for breach of contract, inducing breach, breach of confidence, conspiracy to injure, and copyright infringement.
- Plaintiffs obtained search orders against Defendants and seized documents.
- Plaintiffs believed documents revealed offences under EFMA, Penal Code, PCA, and CMA.
- Plaintiffs disclosed some documents to authorities.
- Plaintiffs sought leave to disclose documents allegedly evidencing offences under EFMA, Penal Code, PCA, and CMA.
- D1 signed a declaration to MOM confirming D2 had not made voluntary CPF contributions to inflate foreign employee entitlement.
- WhatsApp messages suggested Defendants made CPF contributions to individuals not employed by D2.
- WhatsApp messages suggested D2 hired Lydia without a valid work permit.
- Plaintiffs alleged D1 inserted her thumb-drive into Plaintiffs' computer and downloaded documents.
5. Formal Citations
- Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another v Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and others, Suit No 164 of 2018 (Summons No 484 of 2019), [2019] SGHC 269
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs obtained search orders against the Defendants | |
| Search orders executed | |
| Defendants filed summons to set aside the search orders | |
| Reports made to Ministry of Manpower, Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and the police | |
| Reports made to Ministry of Manpower, Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and the police | |
| Samuel Thaddaeus’ affidavit filed | |
| D1’s affidavit filed | |
| Hearing date | |
| Defendants’ Submissions dated | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Thaddeus’ affidavit of filed | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Release from Riddick principle
- Outcome: The court allowed the implied undertaking to be modified only to permit the disclosure of documents that might reveal the potential commission of EFMA offences.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Disclosure of documents for criminal investigations
- Retrospective leave to disclose documents
- Related Cases:
- [1977] 1 QB 881
- [2005] 3 SLR(R) 555
- [1987] 1 AC 829
- [2018] 2 SLR 215
- [1991] 2 SLR(R) 688
- [1982] AC 380
- [2005] EWHC 238 (Ch)
- [1992] 1 WLR 919
- [2009] 5 HKLRD 615
- [1995] 1 Qd R 476
- [2008] 1 SCR 157
- [2008] WASC 190
- [2008] VSC 572
- [2009] WASC 207
- [2009] NSWSC 361
- [2014] 6 HKC 285
- [2010] 2 SLR 413
- [2015] 3 SLR 1166
- [1991] 2 SLR(R) 823
- [1992] 2 SLR(R) 328
- [1996] 1 WLR 1122
- [2018] EWHC 3045 (Comm)
- (2012) 95 IPR 344
- [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1017
- Offences under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act
- Outcome: The court found that the Beckkett conditions were satisfied and allowed the disclosure of documents pertaining to possible commission of offences under s 5(1) and s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False declaration to support an application for an S-Pass
- Employing a foreign employee without a valid work pass
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 2 SLR 413
- Offence under section 425 of the Penal Code
- Outcome: The court disallowed the Plaintiffs’ application in relation to these documents.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Mischief
- Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act
- Outcome: The court refused the Plaintiffs leave to be released from the undertaking in relation to the documents that purported to disclose an offence under s 6(b) of the PCA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Corruptly giving gratification to an agent
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 3 SLR 1166
- Offences under the Computer Misuse Act
- Outcome: The court refused the Plaintiffs leave to be released from the undertaking in relation to the documents that purported to disclose alleged offences under s 3(1) of the CMA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unauthorized access to computer data
- Privilege against self-incrimination
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendants had waived the privilege.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Waiver of privilege
- Related Cases:
- [1991] 2 SLR(R) 823
- [1992] 2 SLR(R) 328
- Retrospective release from implied undertaking
- Outcome: The court exercised its discretion to grant retrospective leave for the documents relating to the EFMA offences.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 1 WLR 1122
- [2018] EWHC 3045 (Comm)
- (2012) 95 IPR 344
- [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1017
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Account of Profits
- Injunctions
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Inducing Breach of Contract
- Breach of Confidence
- Conspiracy to Injure
- Copyright Infringement
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Employment Litigation
11. Industries
- Pharmaceutical
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd | QB | Yes | [1977] 1 QB 881 | England and Wales | Established the Riddick principle, restricting use of discovered documents to the action in which they were obtained. |
| Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 555 | Singapore | Articulated the Beckkett conditions for releasing or modifying the implied undertaking under the Riddick principle. |
| Crest Homes Plc v Marks and Others | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] 1 AC 829 | England and Wales | Clarified that the implied undertaking extends to information derived from discovered documents. |
| BNX v BOE and another appeal | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 215 | Singapore | Referred to for the Beckkett conditions regarding the release or modification of an undertaking. |
| Reebok International Ltd v Royal Corp and another action | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 688 | Singapore | Discussed the application of the Riddick principle to documents discovered under a search order. |
| Rank Film Distributors Ltd and Others v Video Information Centre (A Firm) and Others | House of Lords | Yes | [1982] AC 380 | England and Wales | Addressed the privilege against self-incrimination and its intersection with the Riddick principle. |
| O Ltd v Z | EWHC | Yes | [2005] EWHC 238 (Ch) | England and Wales | Addressed the use of discovered documents for criminal investigation or prosecution. |
| Bank of Crete SA v Koskotas and Others (No 2) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 WLR 919 | England and Wales | Addressed the use of discovered documents for criminal investigation or prosecution. |
| Re NTD (BVI) Trading Ltd (No 2) | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [2009] 5 HKLRD 615 | Hong Kong | Addressed the use of discovered documents for criminal investigation or prosecution. |
| Bailey v Australian Broadcasting Corp | Supreme Court of Queensland | Yes | [1995] 1 Qd R 476 | Australia | Addressed the use of discovered documents for criminal investigation or prosecution. |
| Doucette (Litigation Guardian of) v Wee Watch Day Care Systems Inc | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2008] 1 SCR 157 | Canada | Addressed the use of discovered documents for criminal investigation or prosecution. |
| North East Equity Pty Ltd v Goldenwest Equities Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [2008] WASC 190 | Australia | Discussed whether the application is brought for some personal advantage or improper purpose rather than to advance the public interest. |
| Visy Board v D’Souza & Ors (No 3) | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [2008] VSC 572 | Australia | Applied the approach in Bailey to cases concerning information obtained via search and seizure orders. |
| Andrew Koh Nominees Pty Ltd v Pacific Corp Ltd (No 2) | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [2009] WASC 207 | Australia | Applied the approach in Bailey to cases concerning answers to interrogatories. |
| Prime Finance Pty Ltd and Ors v Randall and Ors | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2009] NSWSC 361 | Australia | Applied the approach in Bailey to cases concerning affidavits obtained in the course of proceedings. |
| Secretary for Justice v Florence Tsang Chiu Wing & Ors | Court of Final Appeal | Yes | [2014] 6 HKC 285 | Hong Kong | Reiterated the principles in Crest Homes and the balancing of competing interests. |
| Lim Kopi Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 413 | Singapore | Stated that an offence under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA was a “serious one, which ought to be dealt with swiftly and sternly by the courts”. |
| Public Prosecutor v Syed Mostofa Romel | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 1166 | Singapore | Affirmed that corruption is a serious offence. |
| Guccio Gucci SpA v Sukhdav Singh and other suits | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 823 | Singapore | Addressed the privilege against self-incrimination. |
| Nikkomann Co Pte Ltd and others v Yulean Trading Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 328 | Singapore | Addressed the privilege against self-incrimination. |
| Miller and Another v Scorey and Others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 WLR 1122 | England and Wales | Addressed the power to grant leave to disclose nunc pro tunc. |
| The ECU Group Plc v HSBC Bank Plc & others | EWHC | Yes | [2018] EWHC 3045 (Comm) | England and Wales | Addressed the power to grant leave to disclose nunc pro tunc. |
| Websyte Corp Pty Ltd (ACN 097 870 936) v Alexander and Another | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | (2012) 95 IPR 344 | Australia | Addressed the power to grant leave to disclose nunc pro tunc. |
| Microsoft Corp and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1017 | Singapore | Addressed the power to grant leave to disclose nunc pro tunc. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) s 22(1)(d) | Singapore |
| Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) s 5 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 425 | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6(b) | Singapore |
| Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A, 2007 Rev Ed) s 3(1) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Riddick principle
- Implied undertaking
- Search order
- Discovery
- Criminal investigation
- Employment of Foreign Manpower Act
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Computer Misuse Act
- Privilege against self-incrimination
- Retrospective leave
15.2 Keywords
- Riddick principle
- Discovery
- Criminal investigation
- EFMA
- Singapore
- Employment
- Foreign Manpower
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Riddick principle | 90 |
| Discovery of documents | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Criminal Law | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Employment Law | 30 |
| Intellectual Property Law | 20 |
| Corporate Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Criminal Law
- Employment Law