Bellingham v Reed: Personal Data Protection Act & Right of Private Action

In Bellingham v Reed [2021] SGHC 125, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding a District Judge's decision to grant an injunction against Alex Bellingham in civil proceedings commenced by IP Investment Management Pte Ltd and IP Real Estate Investments Pte Ltd, later joined by Michael Reed, under s 32(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). The court, presided over by Chua Lee Ming J, allowed the appeal, concluding that Reed did not suffer any loss or damage within the meaning of s 32(1) PDPA and therefore had no right of private action. The court set aside the District Judge's order.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding right of private action under s 32(1) PDPA. The court held Reed did not suffer loss or damage, thus no right of action.

1.7 Decision Date

24 May 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Alex Bellingham	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Ong Ziying Clement of Damodara Ong LLC Khoo Shufen Joni of Damodara Ong LLC
Michael Reed	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Tay Yong Seng of Hong Anliang Ang Ann Liang of Hong Anliang Alyssa P’ng of Allen & Gledhill LLP Yap Wei-Ming Alexander of Hong Anliang

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chua Lee Ming	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ong Ziying Clement	Damodara Ong LLC
Khoo Shufen Joni	Damodara Ong LLC
Tay Yong Seng	Hong Anliang
Ang Ann Liang	Hong Anliang
Alyssa P’ng	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Yap Wei-Ming Alexander	Hong Anliang

4. Facts

Bellingham contacted some of IPIM's customers, including Reed, after leaving his employment.
Bellingham sent an email to Reed at his personal email address regarding his upcoming Edinburgh exit.
Reed queried the fact that QIP had information about his investment in the Edinburgh Fund.
Reed asked Bellingham for clarifications as to Bellingham's knowledge of his dealings with IP Global.
IPIM's solicitors sent Bellingham a letter alleging that he had breached his obligations not to misuse confidential and/or personal data.
Bellingham claimed that he obtained Reed's email address from Reed's LinkedIn account.
IPIM and IP Real Estate filed District Court Originating Summons No 170 of 2018 against Bellingham.

5. Formal Citations

Bellingham v Reed, Registrar’s Appeal No 24 of 2019 (District Court Originating Summons No 170 of 2018), [2021] SGHC 125
IP Investment Management Pte Ltd & others v Alex Bellingham, , [2019] SGDC 207

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-06-01	Bellingham employed by IP Real Estate as marketing consultant.
2016-03-01	IP Real Estate seconded Bellingham to IPIM HK.
2017-01-31	Bellingham left employment with IP Real Estate.
2018-08-15	Bellingham sent email to Reed.
2018-08-21	Reed sent email to Ferguson querying QIP's knowledge of his investment.
2018-08-21	IPIM's solicitors sent Bellingham a letter alleging breach of obligations.
2018-08-28	Reed asked Bellingham for clarifications.
2018-09-03	Bellingham replied to A&G seeking details of alleged breaches.
2018-09-03	A&G wrote to Bellingham, repeating demands.
2018-09-12	Bellingham replied to A&G.
2018-09-12	Bellingham responded to Reed's email.
2018-10-01	IPIM and IP Real Estate filed District Court Originating Summons No 170 of 2018.
2019-03-20	IPIM and IP Real Estate applied to join Reed as a plaintiff.
2019-05-23	Reed was joined as a plaintiff in OSS 170.
2019-10-03	District Judge granted Reed's application.
2020-09-11	Hearing date.
2020-10-12	Hearing date.
2021-05-25	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Right of Private Action under s 32(1) PDPA
- Outcome: The court held that Reed did not suffer any loss or damage within the meaning of s 32(1) PDPA and therefore had no right of private action.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Scope of 'loss or damage' under s 32(1) PDPA
  - Whether distress constitutes 'loss or damage'
  - Whether loss of control over personal data constitutes 'loss or damage'
Contravention of ss 13 and 18 PDPA
- Outcome: The court found that Bellingham had contravened ss 13 and 18 PDPA.
- Category: Substantive
Purposive Approach to Statutory Interpretation
- Outcome: The court applied the purposive approach to interpret the term 'loss or damage' in s 32(1) PDPA.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2017] 2 SLR 850

8. Remedies Sought

Injunction
Delivery up of personal data

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Personal Data Protection Act

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Investment Management
Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
IP Investment Management Pte Ltd & others v Alex Bellingham	District Court	Yes	[2019] SGDC 207	Singapore	Cited for the District Judge's decision that s 32 PDPA does not give a right of action to parties other than the data subject.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 850	Singapore	Cited for the purposive approach in the interpretation of a provision of a written law.
Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 26	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the protection against deprivation of “life or personal liberty” under Art 9(1) of the Constitution does not extend to the right to privacy.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862	Singapore	Cited for the grounds on which leave to appeal may be granted.
Essar Steel Ltd v Bayerische Landesbank and others	High Court	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 25	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that an error of fact can be relied on to seek leave to appeal if it is clear beyond reasonable argument.
Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed	High Court	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 138	Singapore	Cited for the concern that if facts have to be examined in detail to demonstrate the error, the court hearing the leave application might as well hear the appeal proper.
Vidal-Hall and others v Google Inc (Information Commissioner intervening)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] QB 1003	United Kingdom	Cited for the holding that damages could be awarded under s 13 DPA (UK) for distress even though the claimants had not suffered any pecuniary loss and the contravention of the DPA (UK) was not related to special purposes.
Lloyd v Google llc	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 2 WLR 484	United Kingdom	Cited for the holding that damages could be awarded for loss of control over data under s 13 DPA (UK) without proof of pecuniary loss or distress.
My Digital Lock Pte Ltd	Singapore Personal Data Protection Commission	Yes	[2018] SGPDPC 3	Singapore	Cited for the Deputy Commissioner's views on Jones v Tsige and Kaye v Robertson.
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act	N/A	Yes	SC 2000, c 5 (Can)	Canada	Cited as an example of legislation that provides a civil claims framework in respect of contraventions of relevant provisions.
Rabi Chitrakar v Bell TV	Federal Court	Yes	[2013] FC 1103	Canada	Cited for the principle that one of the factors considered in awarding damages is the vindication of privacy rights.
Nammo v TransUnion of Canada Inc	N/A	Yes	[2012] 3 FCR 600	Canada	Cited for the principle that one of the factors considered in awarding damages is the vindication of privacy rights.
N/A	N/A	Yes	Privacy Act 1993 (NZ)	New Zealand	Cited as an example of legislation that provides for an action for interference with the privacy of an individual.
Karen May Hammond v Credit Union Baywide	Human Rights Review Tribunal	Yes	[2015] NZHRRT 6	New Zealand	Cited for the principle that the award of damages must be an appropriate response to adequately compensate the aggrieved individual for the humiliation, loss of dignity or injury to feelings he or she has suffered.
N/A	N/A	Yes	Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap 486) (HK)	Hong Kong	Cited as an example of legislation that provides for statutory control of the collection, holding and use of personal data.
N/A	N/A	Yes	Directive 95/46/EC	European Union	Cited as an example of legislation that sets out the object of protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data.
N/A	N/A	Yes	Data Protection Act 1998 (c 29) (UK)	United Kingdom	Cited as an example of legislation that provides for compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements.
Jones v Tsige	Ontario Court of Appeal	Yes	(2012) ONCA 32	Canada	Cited for the holding that a right of action for intrusion upon seclusion should be recognised in Ontario.
Kaye v Robertson	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] IPR 147	United Kingdom	Cited for the acknowledgement that there was no right to privacy in English law and accordingly there was no right of action for breach of a person's privacy.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (Act 26 of 2012)	Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Personal data
Loss or damage
Right of private action
Data protection
Purposive interpretation
Edinburgh Fund
Contravention
Data subject
Accredited Investors

15.2 Keywords

Personal Data Protection Act
PDPA
Right of private action
Data protection
Loss or damage
Singapore
Injunction

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Data Protection Law	95
Statutory Interpretation	60
Administrative Law	20

16. Subjects

Data Protection
Privacy Law
Civil Procedure
Statutory Interpretation