Arfat Pannir Selvam and others v Sharad Selvam Ramachandra

The claimants are Arfat Pannir Selvam, widow of the late former Justice G P Selvam, and her two daughters, who are the executors and trustees of his last will dated 8 January 2021. The defendant, Sharad Selvam Ramachandra, is the second claimant's son and the first claimant's grandson. On 20 January 2025 he sent, through his then solicitors, a letter accusing the claimants of breaching their fiduciary duties as trustees of the estate. The letter was said to have been circulated to people with no interest in the estate, and it reproduced private and privileged material, including the second claimant's WhatsApp chats, a letter the first claimant had written for her daughters about estate planning, and a statement she had prepared for her solicitors.

On 3 February 2025 the claimants sued him for breach of confidence and defamation in Originating Claim No 79 of 2025 and applied without notice for orders. Two days later the court granted an injunction against using or publishing the material, an order for its delivery up, a search order over his premises and devices, and an order that he disclose by affidavit where the material was and to whom it had gone. The search turned up further material, including a diary entry and covert audio recordings. The defendant, who acted in person, applied by Summons No 1070 of 2025 to set the orders aside. Tan Siong Thye SJ heard the application.

1. Whether the injunction and delivery up orders should be set aside
2. Whether the search order should be set aside
3. Whether the claimants had breached their duty of full and frank disclosure when seeking the orders without notice

On the injunction, there was a serious question to be tried under the test in I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] 1 SLR 1130. The material was private and personal and so had the quality of confidence, as recognised in Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani v Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani [2022] 3 SLR 1211. An obligation of confidence arose because the second claimant had handed him her unlocked phone only to send photos to himself, and he later forwarded her chats to himself while she was asleep. The claimed iniquity exception had not been extended beyond legal professional privilege, as Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd [2025] 4 SLR 1166 showed. The balance of convenience favoured preserving confidentiality.

On the search order, the requirements in Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2006] 1 SLR(R) 901 were met. The main dispute was whether there was a real possibility he would destroy evidence of how he obtained the material. He had material that could not have come from the phone and had not explained its source as his disclosure obligation required. He admitted adding a date to the copy of the letter to the daughters he circulated, and his version of the solicitors' statement omitted its confidentiality header. Together with his secret recordings, this showed him to be untrustworthy, and the wide order was proportionate given the uncertainty over what he had taken.

On disclosure, none of the alleged omissions was material: the wider definition of confidential material was in the statement of claim before the court, and the will's changes were a matter for trial.

The court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the orders. Costs were fixed at $12,000 (all in), less than the $15,000 sought because the defendant acted in person, and he was allowed to pay by instalments of $2,000 per month.