ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits: Abuse of Process & Pre-Action Discovery

In ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited v Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed the issue of abuse of process in pre-action discovery. ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited, the appellant, sought to use documents disclosed by Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the respondent, in Singapore pre-action discovery proceedings, in a separate legal action in the United Kingdom. The court dismissed the appeal, enjoining ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited from using the disclosed documents in the UK proceedings, finding that such use constituted an abuse of the pre-action discovery regime.

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

Singapore court case regarding abuse of pre-action discovery. ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd was barred from using documents disclosed by Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd in UK proceedings.

1.7 Decision Date

5 July 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Prakash Pillai of CLASIS LLC Koh Junxiang of CLASIS LLC
Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Upheld	Won	Toh Kian Sing SC of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Davis Tan Yong Chuan of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Ting Yong Hong of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Judge of Appeal	No
Steven Chong	Judge of Appeal	Yes
Quentin Loh	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Prakash Pillai	CLASIS LLC
Koh Junxiang	CLASIS LLC
Toh Kian Sing SC	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Davis Tan Yong Chuan	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Ting Yong Hong	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited entered into repurchasing agreements with Come Harvest and Mega Wealth.
The agreements involved the sale of nickel products with an option to repurchase.
ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited received what appeared to be original warehouse receipts endorsed by Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited discovered that the warehouse receipts were forged.
ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited sought assistance and documents from Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd stated that it had never handed the original warehouse receipts to the Companies.
ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited filed Originating Summons No 533 of 2017 for pre-action discovery and interrogatories against Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited commenced an action against the Companies in the UK.
ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited applied to join Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd in the UK proceedings, relying on information from the disclosed documents.
Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd applied for injunctions to restrain ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited from using the disclosed documents in the UK proceedings.

5. Formal Citations

ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 132 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 64

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2016-01-01	ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited entered into repurchasing agreements with Come Harvest and Mega Wealth.
2017-01-01	ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited discovered that the warehouse receipts in its possession had been forged.
2017-03-02	Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd's solicitors stated that Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd had never handed the original warehouse receipts to the Companies.
2017-05-17	ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited filed Originating Summons No 533 of 2017 for pre-action discovery and interrogatories against Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
2017-12-21	ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited commenced an action against Come Harvest and Mega Wealth in the UK.
2018-03-07	ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited's counsel informed the court of the existence of the UK proceedings.
2018-08-13	Originating Summons No 533 of 2017 was dismissed by the assistant registrar.
2018-09-17	ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited applied to the High Court of England and Wales to join Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd in the UK proceedings.
2018-11-23	The joinder application was granted ex parte.
2019-02-11	ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited withdrew its appeal against the assistant registrar’s decision in Originating Summons No 533 of 2017.
2019-03-01	Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd applied for injunctions to restrain ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited from using the disclosed documents in the UK proceedings and continuing its suit against Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd in the UK proceedings.
2019-01-01	Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd applied to set aside the joinder order and challenged the jurisdiction of the English court in the UK proceedings.
2019-01-01	The Judge enjoined ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited from adducing or relying on the disclosed documents in any foreign proceedings but declined to grant the anti-suit injunction.
2020-06-09	Court hearing.
2020-07-06	Grounds of decision delivered.

7. Legal Issues

Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant's use of the disclosed documents in the UK proceedings amounted to a collateral purpose and therefore an abuse of process.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Collateral purpose
  - Riddick principle
- Related Cases:
  - [1977] QB 881
Pre-Action Discovery
- Outcome: The court clarified the scope and purpose of pre-action discovery, emphasizing its limitation to intended proceedings before a Singapore court.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 2 SLR 208

8. Remedies Sought

Injunction to restrain the use of disclosed documents
Injunction to restrain the continuation of suit in the UK proceedings

9. Cause of Actions

Conspiracy by unlawful means
Dishonest assistance
Deceit
Unjust enrichment
Constructive trust
Knowing receipt

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd	English Court of Appeal	No	[1977] QB 881	England and Wales	Established the principle that a party who discloses a document in discovery in an action under compulsion is entitled to the protection of the court against any use of the document otherwise than in that action.
Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners	House of Lords	Yes	[1974] AC 133	England and Wales	Established the Norwich Pharmacal relief, which allows the court to order a third party who is caught up in the wrongdoing of others to disclose information that would allow the applicant to identify the wrongdoers.
Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 208	Singapore	Addressed the scope and limitations of pre-action discovery and interrogatories, emphasizing that it could only be ordered in relation to intended proceedings before a Singapore court.
ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 203	Singapore	The Judge enjoined the appellant from adducing or relying on the disclosed documents in any foreign proceedings but declined to grant the anti-suit injunction.
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd and another	English High Court	No	[1991] 1 WLR 756	England and Wales	Addressed the use of witness statements and experts’ reports that had been disclosed pursuant to pre-trial proceedings but which were eventually not used at trial.
Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim and another	High Court	No	[2015] 2 SLR 578	Singapore	Articulated the open justice exception to the Riddick principle, stating that the principle ceased to apply to a document disclosed during discovery in a prior suit once it had been used in open court.
Yeo Chong Lin v Tay Ang Choo Nancy and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1157	Singapore	Established the test to admit further evidence for an appeal.
AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 341	Singapore	Established the test in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, which requires that the evidence would have had an important influence on the result of the case.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2017] 4 SLR 684	Singapore	An applicant for pre-action disclosure must establish credible evidence of a Singapore nexus but does not have to prove that Singapore is the most appropriate forum in which to commence a substantive action.
AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 1158	Singapore	The concept of abuse of process pervades the whole law of civil procedure.
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 159	Singapore	The concept of abuse of process is a control mechanism essentially targeted at addressing abusive conduct.
Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 760	Singapore	The concept of abuse of process informs the exercise of the court’s procedural powers.
Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 1271	Singapore	The concept of abuse of process is essentially targeted at addressing abusive conduct.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649	Singapore	The categories of conduct that may constitute an abuse of process are not closed.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 866	Singapore	A party who commences proceedings for the predominant purpose of achieving something other than what the legal process was designed to achieve is someone who has abused the process of the court.
Lonrho plc v Fayed (No 5)	English High Court	Yes	[1993] 1 WLR 1489	England and Wales	A collateral purpose might be the use of the court as a platform to broadcast the plaintiff’s vilification of the defendants.
Kuah Kok Kim and others v Ernst & Young	High Court	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR(R) 485	Singapore	The entire purpose of a pre-action disclosure application is to discover documents and information in order to determine whether there is a viable cause of action against the respondent or to identify the appropriate parties to sue.
Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd and another v Koh Chye Heng	High Court	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 526	Singapore	A party who discloses a document in discovery in an action under compulsion is entitled to the protection of the court against any use of the document otherwise than in that action.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG	High Court	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 555	Singapore	A party who discloses a document in discovery in an action under compulsion is entitled to the protection of the court against any use of the document otherwise than in that action.
BNX v BOE and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 215	Singapore	Disclosure of documents pursuant to a court order for production of that specific document was disclosure compelled by court order, and that the Riddick principle applied.
Haywood Management Ltd v Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 478	Singapore	The court was entitled to take into account the fact that the applicant was legally obliged not to use the disclosed documents for any extraneous purpose by reason of the Riddick principle.
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] SGCA 54	Singapore	While there is no rule that every alleged conspirator must be sued for an action in conspiracy to succeed, if the party omitted from the suit is a protagonist, the plaintiff may find it difficult to prove its case as a matter of evidence.
Relfo Ltd (in liquidation) v Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 657	Singapore	Established the elements to establish a claim in knowing receipt.
ED&F Man Capital Markets Limited v Come Harvest Holdings Limited and others	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2019] EWHC 1661 (Comm)	England and Wales	The English courts appeared to have accepted that the appellant did hold a provisional intention to commence proceedings against the respondent in Singapore prior to August 2018, when the appellant applied to join the respondent in the UK proceedings.
ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) Pte Limited	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] EWCA Civ 2073	England and Wales	The English courts appeared to have accepted that the appellant did hold a provisional intention to commence proceedings against the respondent in Singapore prior to August 2018, when the appellant applied to join the respondent in the UK proceedings.
Sim Leng Chua v Manghardt	High Court	Yes	[1987] SLR(R) 52	Singapore	The Riddick principle applied to a document disclosed pursuant to the usual orders for discovery of documents made in an earlier action.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
Order 24 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court	Singapore
Order 26A of the Rules of Court	Singapore
Section 2 of the Interpretation Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Pre-action discovery
Abuse of process
Riddick principle
Collateral purpose
Warehouse receipts
Repurchasing agreements
Joinder application
Injunction
Singapore proceedings
UK proceedings

15.2 Keywords

Pre-action discovery
Abuse of process
Injunction
Singapore
UK
ED&F Man
Straits

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Abuse of Process	95
Civil Practice	80
Civil Litigation	75
Injunctions	65
Jurisdiction	60
Estoppel	50
Fraud and Deceit	40
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	35
Contract Law	30
Evidence Law	30
Misrepresentation	25
Inducement of Breach of Contract	20
Evidence	20
Arbitration	15
Contempt of Court	10
Commercial Law	10

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Abuse of Process
Discovery