THIRD EYE CAPITAL CORPORATION v PRETTY VIEW SHIPPING S.A. & 2 Ors

[2024] SGHC 96 High Court (General Division) 3 April 2024 HC/OS 207/2022 ( HC/SUM 245/2024 ) 34 min read

16 cases cited (10 SG, 6 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	3 April 2024
Judge	Hri Kumar Nair
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure, Abuse of Process
Counsel	LVM Law Chambers LLC, WongPartnership LLP, Chan Junhao Justin, Koh Swee Yen, Lin Chunlong, Tian Keyun, Wong Jun Hao Lucas, Yong Walter

Source: [2024] SGHC 96, High Court (General Division), decided 3 April 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Disclosure of documents — Riddick principle — Whether permission of court required to use documents Civil Procedure — Disclosure of documents — Riddick principle — Whether balance of interest in favour of granting permission Abuse of Process — Riddick principle — Whether proceedings for the enforcement of judgment debt were brought for a collateral purpose

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Abuse of Process

Judges (1)

Hri Kumar Nair Delivered

Counsel (8)

LVM Law Chambers LLC Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Chan Junhao Justin Counsel Defendant Koh Swee Yen Counsel Claimant Lin Chunlong Counsel Claimant Tian Keyun Counsel Claimant Wong Jun Hao Lucas Counsel Claimant Yong Walter Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

Parakou Tankers Inc Defendant Pretty Urban Shipping SA Defendant Pretty View Shipping SA Defendant Third Eye Capital Corporation Claimant

Case Significance

Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA and others [2024] SGHC 96 was a Grounds of Decision of the General Division of the High Court of Singapore delivered on 3 April 2024 by Hri Kumar Nair J, in Originating Summons No 207 of 2022 (Summons No 245 of 2024), following a hearing on 20 March 2024. The plaintiff, Third Eye Capital Corporation ("Third Eye"), a Canadian company providing financial capital and credit services, applied for permission to use, in foreign proceedings, documents and information it had obtained from the defendants under compulsion in enforcement proceedings in Singapore. The defendants were Pretty View Shipping SA and Pretty Urban Shipping SA, together with Parakou Tankers Inc, which was incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and was the holding company of the first and second defendants.

Hri Kumar Nair J allowed the application and provided his grounds of decision. The catchwords frame the issues around the Riddick principle in the disclosure of documents — whether the permission of the court was required to use the documents and whether the balance of interest favoured granting permission — and around abuse of process, namely whether the enforcement proceedings for the judgment debt had been brought for a collateral purpose. Third Eye was represented by WongPartnership LLP and the defendants by LVM Law Chambers LLC.

[2024] SGHC 96 explained

THIRD EYE CAPITAL CORPORATION v PRETTY VIEW SHIPPING S.A. & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC 96) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 3 April 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Abuse of Process. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 96 about?

THIRD EYE CAPITAL CORPORATION v PRETTY VIEW SHIPPING S.A. & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC 96) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Disclosure of documents — Riddick principle — Whether permission of court required to use documents”, “Civil Procedure — Disclosure of documents — Riddick principle — Whether balance of interest in favour of granting permission”, and “Abuse of Process — Riddick principle — Whether proceedings for the enforcement of judgment debt were brought for a collateral purpose”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGHC 96 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC(A) 8. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

Third Eye Capital Corporation, a Canadian company that had obtained arbitration awards and a Singapore judgment against shipping companies Pretty View Shipping SA, Pretty Urban Shipping SA and their holding company Parakou Tankers Inc, applied for permission to use documents and information obtained under compulsion in Singapore enforcement proceedings in foreign proceedings. The General Division of the High Court considered whether permission was required under the Riddick principle, whether the balance of interests favoured granting it, and whether the proceedings were brought for a collateral purpose. The court held that permission was required, that the interests in allowing use of the information outweighed those protected by the Riddick undertaking, allowed the application and ordered the defendants to pay costs fixed at S$15,000.

What was decided in Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA [2024] SGHC 96?

Hri Kumar Nair J, on 3 April 2024, allowed Third Eye Capital Corporation's application for permission to use, in foreign proceedings, documents and information it had obtained under compulsion from the defendants in Singapore enforcement proceedings.

How did the Riddick principle feature in [2024] SGHC 96?

The case turned on the Riddick principle governing use of compelled disclosure. The court considered whether its permission was required to use the documents in foreign proceedings and whether the balance of interest favoured granting permission, alongside whether the enforcement proceedings had a collateral purpose.