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)

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.

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.

Cases Cited (16)

SG (2)
[2015] SGHCR 3 [2024] SGHC(A) 8
SLR (8)
[1999] 3 SLR(R) 1017 [2013] 4 SLR 1116 [2018] 2 SLR 159 [2020] 2 SLR 695 [2020] 2 SLR 725 [2020] 2 SLR 912 [2020] 5 SLR 974 [2021] 2 SLR 584
UK (5)
[1977] 1 QB 881 [1985] Ch 299 [1991] 1 WLR 756 [2006] EWHC 3107 [2010] EWHC 458
HK (1)
[2005] 1 HKC 337

Referenced in

Legal concepts & references

Abuse of Process — Riddick principle

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 96)