Bhojwani v Bhojwani: Breach of Confidence & Surreptitious Email Extraction

In Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani v Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani, the plaintiff, Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani, sued his former wife, Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani, their sons, Devin Jethanand Bhojwani and Sandeep Jethanand Bhojwani, and WongPartnership LLP in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for breach of confidence. The plaintiff alleged that his sons surreptitiously extracted emails from his personal laptop and used them in matrimonial and trust proceedings. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Kwek Mean Luck, found the sons liable for breach of confidence, granted a permanent injunction against all defendants, and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff; claims for damages dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Father sues sons for breach of confidence for extracting emails. Court finds sons liable, grants injunction, dismisses damages claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Devin Jethanand BhojwaniDefendantIndividualPermanent Injunction GrantedLost
Sandeep Jethanand BhojwaniDefendantIndividualPermanent Injunction GrantedLost
Jethanand Harkishindas BhojwaniPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffPartial
Lakshmi Prataprai BhojwaniDefendantIndividualPermanent Injunction GrantedLost
WongPartnership LLPDefendantLimited Liability PartnershipPermanent Injunction GrantedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kwek Mean LuckJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Derek Kang Yu HsienCairnhill Law LLC
Lim Shi Zheng LucasCairnhill Law LLC
Kanapathi Pillai NirumalanNiru & Co LLC
Liew Teck HuatNiru & Co LLC
Phang CunkuangNiru & Co LLC
Ow Jiang Meng BenjaminNiru & Co LLC
Bryan Looy Chye ShenNiru & Co LLC
Gavin Neo Jia ChengWongPartnership LLP
Khoo Kiah Min JolynWongPartnership LLP
Alvin Yeo SCWongPartnership LLP
Chang Man PhingWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff and first defendant are former husband and wife.
  2. Second and third defendants are two of their children.
  3. Third defendant asked the plaintiff for use of his Personal Laptop to watch a movie.
  4. While using the Personal Laptop, the third defendant downloaded documents from the plaintiff’s email folders into a USB stick without the plaintiff’s awareness or consent.
  5. The second defendant reviewed the Copied Data and forwarded some of them to the fourth defendant, on behalf of the first defendant.
  6. The first defendant used some of the documents from the Copied Data in the Matrimonial Proceedings without the awareness or consent of the plaintiff.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani v Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani (alias Mrs Lakshmi Jethanand Bhojwani) and others, Suit No 1242 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 256

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff and first defendant married.
Plaintiff, first defendant, and their children stayed at the Matrimonial Home.
Plaintiff and first defendant's marriage broke down.
Third defendant asked the plaintiff to use his Personal Laptop.
Third defendant downloaded the Copied Data into a USB stick.
Third defendant told the first and second defendants about the Copied Data.
First defendant commenced the Matrimonial Proceedings.
First defendant initiated the Trust Proceedings.
Interim Judgment was obtained, dissolving the marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant.
Plaintiff moved out of the Matrimonial Home.
Interim Injunction Order issued in HC/ORC 5620/2020.
Trial began.
Trial concluded.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Confidence
    • Outcome: The court found the second and third defendants liable for breach of confidence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Surreptitious acquisition of information
      • Use of confidential information without consent
      • Obligation of confidence
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 1 SLR 1130
      • [1969] RPC 41
  2. Permanent Injunction
    • Outcome: The court granted a permanent injunction against the defendants, with a knowledge exception.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of injunction
      • Exceptions to injunction
      • Knowledge exception
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 5 SLR 522
  3. Damages for Breach of Confidence
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages, including general damages, special damages, damages for injury to feelings, and equitable damages.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • General damages
      • Special damages
      • Damages for injury to feelings
      • Equitable damages

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Permanent Injunction
  2. Order for delivery up of Copied Data
  3. Special damages
  4. Damages or equitable damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Confidence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Breach of Confidence
  • Intellectual Property Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and othersCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 1130SingaporeCited for the law on breach of confidence, specifically the requirements for establishing a breach of confidence claim.
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) LtdNot availableYes[1969] RPC 41Not availableCited for the test for breach of confidence, specifically the requirements that the information has the necessary quality of confidence and was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.
Imerman v TchenguizNot availableYes[2011] 2 WLR 592Not availableCited for the principle that intentionally obtaining information without authorization, where the claimant had an expectation of privacy, constitutes a breach of confidence.
Ashcoast Pty Ltd v WhillansQueensland Court of AppealYes[1998] QCA 034AustraliaCited for the proposition that surreptitious acquisition of information is a clear indication that the information was considered confidential.
Ithaca Ice Work Pty Ltd v Queensland Ice Supplies Pty Ltd & AnorSupreme Court of QueenslandYes[2002] QSC 222AustraliaCited for the principle that wrongful acquisition of information raises a presumption that the information should be protected.
Chiarapurk Jack and others v Haw Par Brothers International Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 620SingaporeCited for the principle that a party seeking to restrain another from misusing allegedly confidential information must provide particulars of the information to show that it is confidential.
Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin (alias Yan Qiuxin) and othersCourt of AppealYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 579SingaporeCited for the principle that a plaintiff must specify the confidential information allegedly taken.
Sim Kon Fah v JBPB and Co (a firm) and othersHong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2011] 4 HKLRD 45Hong KongCited for the proposition that the application of principles requiring particulars must be applied with practical common sense and depends on the facts of each case.
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd v Shi HuaifangHong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2019] HKCFI 1212Hong KongCited for the proposition that the application of principles requiring particulars must be applied with practical common sense and depends on the facts of each case.
QB Net Co Ltd v Earnson Management (S) Pte Ltd and othersNot availableYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited to show that the plaintiff had identified the various manuals that constituted the confidential information and adduced evidence to show how such information was confidential in nature.
Wee Shuo Woon v HT SRLCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 94SingaporeCited for the principles on when information is confidential, particularly regarding the 'public domain' principle.
Bumi Geo Engineering Pte Ltd v Civil Tech Pte LtdNot availableYes[2015] 5 SLR 1322SingaporeCited for the proposition that the court is entitled to presume that evidence which could be and is not produced is unfavorable to the person who withholds it.
Press Automation Technology Pte Ltd v Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte LtdNot availableYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 712SingaporeCited for the principle that the effect of the parties’ agreement to include a report as one of the agreed documents was that they had agreed that it would be admissible without formal proof.
Tan Poh Choo Joscelyn v Tan Poh Seng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 22SingaporeCited for the principle that a party should be bound by its pleaded case.
Enholco Pte Ltd v Schonk, Antonius Martinus Mattheus and AnotherHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 108SingaporeCited for the principle that a party should be bound by its pleaded case.
Suhha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia LtdNot availableYes[2017] 1 SLR 141SingaporeCited for the principle that allegations of vital importance ought to have been put directly to the plaintiff who should be given the opportunity to address it.
E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and others and another appealNot availableYes[2012] 1 SLR 32SingaporeCited for the principle that the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for, and it must be a depravity in the legal as well as in the moral sense.
ANB v ANC and another and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 522SingaporeCited for the principle that the court did not prevent the 1st Respondent from relying on her knowledge of the information to seek disclosure of the information via specific discovery in other proceedings in the usual course of litigation.
Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd v Multiple Granite Pte Ltd and othersNot availableYes[2009] 1 SLR 42SingaporeCited for the principle that when a document has become a part of the record in any court proceedings, the information in the document enters into the public domain, and it will be too late to preserve the privilege in the document.
Seow Teck Ming and another v Tan Ah Yeo and another and another appealNot availableYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 38SingaporeCited for the principle that bad faith is usually considered when the court is deciding whether to grant leave to amend pleadings.
The ShravanNot availableYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 713SingaporeCited to support the position that general damages may be averred generally.
Biofuel Industries Pte Ltd v V8 Environmental Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 199SingaporeCited for the principle that a claimant cannot make a claim for damages without placing before the court sufficient evidence of the quantum of loss it had suffered.
Archer v WilliamsQueen's Bench DivisionYes[2003] EWHC 1670 (QB)England and WalesRelied on Cornelius as the authority to award damages for injury to feelings due to breach of confidence.
Cornelius v De TarantoEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2001] EWCA Civ 1511England and WalesCited as the main case for awarding damages for injury to feelings due to breach of confidence, premised upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Harry Royston Cole v The Chief Officer of the States of Jersey PoliceJersey Royal CourtYes[2007] JRC 240JerseyReferred to Archer and Cornelius as authority for awarding damages for injury to feelings.
Giller v ProcopetsSupreme Court of VictoriaYes(2008) 24 VR 1AustraliaCited for the basis for damages for distress caused by a breach of confidence is the Lord Cairns’ Act, which he submits is in pari materia with para 14 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (“SCJA”).
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte LtdNot availableYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623SingaporeCited in support of a flexible approach to the proof of damage as “[d]ifferent occasions may call for different evidence with regards to certainty of proof, depending on the circumstances of the case and the nature of the damages claimed.”
Shiffon Creations (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Tong Lee Co Pte LtdNot availableYes[1990] 2 SLR(R) 472SingaporeCited for the general rule that an award for damages in lieu of equitable relief would be granted only in exceptional situations.
HT SRL v Wee Shuo WoonHigh CourtYes[2016] 2 SLR 442SingaporeCited for the observation that an injunction is only available before the documents have entered into evidence or otherwise have been relied upon at trial.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence ActSingapore
Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Breach of confidence
  • Copied Data
  • Personal Laptop
  • Permanent Injunction
  • Matrimonial Proceedings
  • Trust Proceedings
  • Knowledge Exception
  • Confidential Information

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of confidence
  • injunction
  • email extraction
  • family dispute
  • confidentiality

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Confidence95
Law of confidence80
Intellectual Property Law75
Duty of confidence70
Remedies65
Injunctions60
Damages50
Civil Procedure40
Family Law30
Trust Law25

16. Subjects

  • Intellectual Property
  • Law of Confidence
  • Civil Litigation