SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Koh Swee Yen SC, Wendy Lin, Tiong Teck Wee and Monica Chong Wan Yee, WongPartnership LLP
concerned (“CAD Order”). The Court confirmed that, notwithstanding the different language of Order 22 rule 2(2)(c) of ROC 2021, common law principles concerning the attachment of debts under Order 49 rule 1(1) of ROC 2014 continued to be relevant. On the facts, the debts could still be attached as the CAD Order did not extinguish the debts owed by the non-party to the creditor and there was still a creditor-debtor relationship. However, the CAD Order prohibited release of the monies that were attached. Development of the Riddick principle in examination of enforcement respondent proceedings – Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA and others [2024] 4 SLR 1304 (“Third Eye Capital”) Under the Riddick principle, a party who was compelled to disclose a document in an action is entitled to protection against the use of the document for a purpose besides that action. Previously in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and other appeals and other matters [2021] 2 SLR 584 (“Ong”), the Court of Appeal held that documents disclosed in examination of judg- ment debtor (EJD) proceedings under Order 48 of ROC 2014 – now termed “examination of enforcement respondent” (EER) proceedings under ROC 2021 – are subject to the Riddick principle, as such proceedings “represent an invocation of the coercive powers of the court” and there was an “element of compulsion” present. However, the protected document or information obtained through EJD/EER proceed- ings (“EJD/EER Documents”) may still be used without permission for “related enforcement pro- ceeding”.
In Third Eye Capital, the High Court found that the related proceedings (in which EJD/EER Documents were intended to be used) were not “related enforcement proceedings” as defined in Ong. The Court’s permission for such use was thus required. The Court clarified the following in this regard: • A party seeking permission to use EJD/EER Documents in related proceedings need not establish an arguable case on the merits of the related proceedings. However, if the other party demonstrates that the related proceed- ings are bound to fail or ought to be struck out, permission should not be granted. • While EJD/EER proceedings should not be used improperly as a form of pre-action discovery to obtain information to bring a claim, “it would not be an abuse if informa- tion relevant to such a claim should emerge during a legitimate exercise of the judgment creditor’s right to examine the corporate judg- ment debtor’s officer(s)”. Reasonable latitude should be afforded to the judgment creditor in seeking such information (the very reason to initiate the EJD/EER process) as they would rarely know what means are available to them to enforce a judgment debt.
1269 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook