Riddick principle
Riddick principle is a specialized practice area in Singapore's legal system. This area encompasses 10 cases from 2003 to 2024.
Leading Law Firms
Analysis of law firms specializing in Riddick principle, ranked by case volume and success rates.
Law Firm | Cases |
---|---|
Straits Law Practice LLC0.00% success rate | 2 cases20.0% of area |
WongPartnership LLP50.00% success rate | 2 cases20.0% of area |
Wong & Leow LLC0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Harry Elias Partnership LLP0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Lee & Lee0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
LVM Law Chambers LLC0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Breakpoint LLC0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Selvam LLC0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Pereira & Tan LLC0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Audent Chambers LLC100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Notable Lawyers
Leading lawyers practicing in Riddick principle, ranked by case volume and success rates.
Lawyer | Cases |
---|---|
N Sreenivasan0.00% success rate | 2 cases20.0% of area |
Koh Swee Yen100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Wayne Yeo100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Tian Keyun100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Lin Weiqi Wendy0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Fan Wai Leong, Benson0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Lin Chunlong100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Mark Tang Yu Zhong100.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Lee Tat Weng, Daniel0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Chua Sui Tong0.00% success rate | 1 cases10.0% of area |
Recent Judgments
Displaying 10 most recent judgments out of 10 total cases
No. | Title | Court | Decision Date | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Sang Cheol Woo v Charles Choi Spackman: Amendment of Defence, Abuse of Process & Riddick Principle | General Division of the High Court | 25 Nov 2024 | Plaintiff's appeal dismissed. |
2 | - | 03 Nov 2024 | Unknown | |
3 | True Yoga v Wee Ewe Seng: Lifting Riddick Undertaking for Hong Kong Proceedings | General Division of the High Court | 24 Apr 2024 | Plaintiffs' application allowed, for the sole purpose of allowing the Hong Kong Court to determine whether there had been a breach of its court order in HCA 1469/2019. |
4 | Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA: Riddick Principle & Disclosure | General Division of the High Court | 02 Apr 2024 | Application allowed. |
5 | Amber Pharmacy v Lim: Riddick Principle, Document Discovery & Criminal Investigations | High Court of the Republic of Singapore | 17 Nov 2019 | Implied undertaking modified to permit disclosure of documents revealing potential commission of Employment of Foreign Manpower Act offences. |
6 | Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim: Implied Undertaking & Use of Disclosed Documents | High Court | 28 Jan 2015 | The court held that the Riddick principle did not apply to the April 14 Minutes and ordered the trial to continue. |
7 | World Sport Group v Dorsey James Michael: Pre-Action Interrogatories & Defamation | High Court | 09 Apr 2013 | Appeal allowed in part. The defendant had to answer interrogatories nos 1, 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 6 and 6.1. |
8 | Littau v Astrata: Interim Injunction & Non-Compete Agreement Dispute | High Court | 09 Dec 2010 | Orders granted to the defendant were ordered to stand, except for the part of paragraph 2 that allowed the defendant to use the information and documents disclosed or produced pursuant to the search orders for purposes of any claim against the plaintiff as well as the Tridex Companies in and outside Singapore. |
9 | Ser Kim Koi v William Merrell Fulton: Release of Implied Undertaking under Riddick Principle | High Court | 06 Jan 2009 | Application partially allowed; implied undertaking released for specific documents disclosed by the second to fourth defendants, but dismissed for documents disclosed by the first defendant. |
10 | Elan Impex v Daewoo: Wrongful Termination, Service Out of Jurisdiction, and Forum Non Conveniens | High Court | 07 Feb 2003 | Action against the first defendant and fourth defendant struck out; orders giving leave to serve outside jurisdiction set aside; interim injunctions discharged; claim against the third defendant and the Mareva injunction against him stayed. |