Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA: Riddick Principle & Disclosure
In Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA, the Singapore High Court granted Third Eye Capital Corporation permission to use documents and information obtained from Pretty View Shipping SA, Pretty Urban Shipping SA, and Parakou Tankers Inc during enforcement proceedings in Singapore, in order to support proceedings in the Republic of the Marshall Islands to pierce the corporate veil of Parakou and hold Liu Por personally liable for a judgment debt. The court, presided over by Hri Kumar Nair J, found that while permission was required under the Riddick principle, the interests of justice favored allowing the use of the information.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court allows Third Eye to use compelled documents in foreign proceedings to pierce corporate veil, balancing interests under Riddick principle.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Third Eye Capital Corporation | Claimant | Corporation | Application allowed | Won | |
| Pretty View Shipping SA | Defendant | Corporation | Application denied | Lost | |
| Pretty Urban Shipping SA | Defendant | Corporation | Application denied | Lost | |
| Parakou Tankers Inc | Defendant | Corporation | Application denied | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hri Kumar Nair | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Third Eye obtained arbitration awards against the Defendants for sums of US$5,300,740.05 and US$5,351,325.48.
- Third Eye obtained leave to enforce the Awards in Singapore and entered judgment against the Defendants.
- Third Eye obtained leave to enforce the Awards in the High Court of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
- Third Eye obtained an order for Liu Por to be orally examined on the Defendants' property and means of satisfying the judgment.
- Third Eye sought permission to use documents and information disclosed during the EJD Proceedings to support proceedings in the RMI.
- The RMI Application seeks an order piercing the corporate veil of Parakou and holding Liu personally liable under the RMI Judgment.
- Liu alone exercised complete control over Parakou’s business.
5. Formal Citations
- Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA and others, Originating Summons No 207 of 2022 (Summons No 245 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 96
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Third Eye obtained two arbitration awards against the Defendants. | |
| Third Eye obtained leave to enforce the Awards in Singapore. | |
| Third Eye entered judgment against the Defendants. | |
| Third Eye obtained leave to enforce the Awards in the High Court of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. | |
| Third Eye obtained an order for Liu to attend before the Registrar to be orally examined. | |
| Liu was orally examined. | |
| Liu was orally examined. | |
| Liu Por’s 3rd Affidavit dated. | |
| Liu was orally examined. | |
| Liu was orally examined. | |
| Hearing of Originating Summons No 207 of 2022 (Summons No 245 of 2024). | |
| Hri Kumar Nair J allowed the application. | |
| Hri Kumar Nair J provided grounds of decision. |
7. Legal Issues
- Riddick Principle
- Outcome: The court determined that permission was required to use the EJD Information, but granted permission after balancing the relevant interests.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Use of documents obtained under compulsion
- Balance of interests in granting permission
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the EJD Proceedings were not conducted for a collateral purpose.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Collateral purpose of enforcement proceedings
8. Remedies Sought
- Permission to use disclosed documents and information in foreign proceedings
- Order piercing the corporate veil
- Holding Liu Por personally liable for the judgment debt
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Arbitration Awards
- Piercing the Corporate Veil
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Enforcement of Judgments
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977] 1 QB 881 | England and Wales | Established the Riddick principle, which protects parties who disclose documents under compulsion from having those documents used for ulterior purposes. |
| Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [1991] 1 WLR 756 | N/A | Built upon the Riddick principle, clarifying that compelled disclosure should be limited to the purpose for which the order was made. |
| Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and other appeals and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 584 | Singapore | Classified situations involving the Riddick principle into three categories and provided guidance on when permission is required to use protected documents. |
| Timing Ltd v Tay Toh Hin and another | N/A | No | [2020] 5 SLR 974 | Singapore | Addressed the issue of identity of parties in the context of using information to execute against the assets of a third party. |
| Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 912 | Singapore | Highlighted factors to consider when determining whether to lift the Riddick undertaking, including the use of information in related foreign civil proceedings. |
| Microsoft Corp and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1017 | Singapore | Stressed the public interest in ensuring that all relevant evidence is before the court. |
| PT Bakrie Investindo v Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1116 | Singapore | Discussed the purpose of EJD proceedings and the various modes of execution under the Rules of Court. |
| Ollech David v Horizon Capital Fund | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC(A) 8 | Singapore | States that the court is entitled to adopt the presumption of similarity and assume that the law in the RMI is the same as Singapore law. |
| Global Multimedia International Ltd v Ara Media Services | N/A | No | [2006] EWHC 3107 (Ch) | England and Wales | The Defendants relied on this case for the proposition that a claimant’s failure to adduce evidence of the foreign law is fatal and can serve as a basis to strike out its claim. |
| Sybron Corporation v Barclays Bank plc | N/A | No | [1985] Ch 299 | N/A | States that permission to use the EJD Information should not be granted if the Defendants can demonstrate that the related proceedings are bound to fail or ought to be struck out. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 159 | Singapore | States that the Court will not permit an improper use of its machinery or processes. |
| ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 695 | Singapore | States that 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. |
| McCormack v National Australia Bank Ltd | N/A | No | (1992) 106 ALR 647 | Australia | States that EJD Proceedings should not be used as a form of pre-action discovery to bring such a claim. |
| Bloomsbury International Ltd v Nouvelle Foods (Hong Kong) Ltd | N/A | No | [2005] 1 HKC 337 | Hong Kong | States that EJD Proceedings should not be used as a form of pre-action discovery to bring such a claim. |
| Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 725 | Singapore | Reasonable latitude should therefore be afforded the judgment creditor in seeking such information. |
| Pacific Harbor Advisors Pte Ltd and another v Tiny Tantono (representative of the estate of Lim Susanto, deceased) and another suit | N/A | Yes | [2015] SGHCR 3 | Singapore | Reasonable latitude should therefore be afforded the judgment creditor in seeking such information. |
| Vitol SA v Capri Marine Limited & Others (No.2) | N/A | No | [2010] EWHC 458 (Comm) | England and Wales | To do so would be to usurp the function of the RMI court and to conduct an exercise for which this Court is less well equipped than the RMI Court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court 2014 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Riddick principle
- EJD Proceedings
- EJD Information
- RMI Application
- Piercing the corporate veil
- Enforcement proceedings
- Compelled disclosure
- Collateral purpose
- Judgment debt
- Alter ego
15.2 Keywords
- Riddick principle
- disclosure
- enforcement
- corporate veil
- Singapore
- foreign proceedings
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 90 |
| Riddick principle | 85 |
| Discovery of documents | 70 |
| Abuse of Process | 60 |
| Judgments and Orders | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Disclosure of Documents
- Abuse of Process
- Enforcement of Judgments