Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCR 2
- Case Number: Originating Application N
- Party Line: L’Oreal and another v Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd
- Decision Date: 02 Apr 2025
- Coram: action, previously found in O 26A of the Rules
- Counsel (Applicants): Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy, Chan Wenqiang and Maria Xenia Robles Lafiguera (Ravindran Associates LLP)
- Counsel (Respondent): Sheryl Lauren Koh Quanli and Woozeer Shaquil Ahmad (Chua & Partners LLP)
- Judges: Chong Ee Hsiun (Assistant Registrar)
- Statutes in Judgment: None cited
- Disposition: The court dismissed SUM 165, ruling that the interests protected by the Riddick undertaking outweighed the arguments for extraneous use of disclosed information.
- Version: Version No 1
- Timestamp: 17:05 hrs
Summary
The dispute in L’Oreal and another v Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 2 centered on an application (SUM 165) concerning the scope and application of the Riddick undertaking. The applicants sought to use information disclosed during the discovery process for purposes extraneous to the primary litigation. The respondent resisted this, invoking the implied undertaking of confidentiality that restricts the use of documents obtained through compulsory discovery to the purposes of the proceedings in which they were disclosed.
Assistant Registrar Chong Ee Hsiun ultimately dismissed the application. The court held that the justifications provided for the extraneous use of the disclosed information were insufficient to overcome the robust protections afforded by the Riddick undertaking. The decision reinforces the strict judicial stance in Singapore regarding the sanctity of discovery materials, emphasizing that the interests protected by the undertaking are paramount and will not be set aside absent compelling reasons. Parties were directed to file written submissions on costs within seven days if they could not reach an agreement.
Timeline of Events
- 29 December 2017: The Civil Justice Commission releases its report recommending the abolition of interrogatories under the Rules of Court 2014.
- 28 March 2024: Delphine de Chalvron swears an affidavit on behalf of the Applicants detailing the alleged trademark infringements.
- 1 April 2024: The Applicants file Originating Application HC/OA 305/2024 seeking pre-action production of information regarding 18 sellers on the Shopee platform.
- 27 May 2024: AR Claudia Chen grants an order (ORC 3108) requiring Shopee to produce specific identity and contact information for the identified sellers.
- 24 June 2024: Shopee files a Disclosure Affidavit purportedly providing the information ordered by the court.
- 14 January 2025: The Applicants file HC/SUM 165/2025, challenging the adequacy of the information provided by Shopee and seeking further compliance orders.
- 17 March 2025: The court conducts a hearing regarding the sufficiency of the information provided and the request for further explanations.
- 2 April 2025: The High Court issues its judgment in [2025] SGHCR 2 regarding the compliance with the information production order.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The Applicants, L’Oreal and La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Dermatologique, are French-incorporated entities that manufacture and supply perfumes, cosmetics, and haircare products. They are the registered proprietors of various trademarks in Singapore and maintain that these marks are valid and subsisting.
The Respondent, Shopee Singapore Private Limited, operates an online e-commerce platform that facilitates transactions between independent buyers and sellers. Shopee maintains that these users are independent individuals or businesses and are not associated with the company.
The dispute arose when the Applicants identified 18 sellers on the Shopee platform who were allegedly advertising and offering counterfeit goods for sale. These goods were marketed under signs identical or similar to the Applicants' registered trademarks, infringing upon their intellectual property rights.
Seeking to pursue legal action against these sellers, the Applicants initiated proceedings to compel Shopee to disclose the sellers' identities, contact details, and business registration information. The core of the current dispute concerns whether the information provided by Shopee in response to the court's earlier production order is sufficient to allow the Applicants to identify and serve the infringing parties.
The Applicants have further requested that the court order Shopee to explain its user verification processes, specifically whether it checks seller identities against government-issued documentation, and to take additional steps to obtain verified information where current data is deemed inadequate.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The court addressed two primary procedural disputes concerning the scope of a non-party's obligations under the Rules of Court 2021 regarding pre-action discovery and information production.
- Compliance with ORC 3108: Whether the Respondent, as a non-party, sufficiently complied with the court's order to produce information concerning the identities of sellers on its platform, specifically regarding the 'Allegedly Outstanding Information'.
- Scope of Ancillary Disclosure Obligations: Whether the court has the jurisdiction and should exercise its discretion to order a non-party to provide further explanations or take additional steps to verify identity information beyond what was initially produced in the disclosure affidavit.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court's analysis began by establishing the standard for compliance with an order to produce information under O 11 r 11 of the Rules of Court 2021. Drawing on the guidance in Lutfi, the court held that a respondent's affidavit is generally conclusive unless it is 'plain and obvious' from objective evidence that the information exists and is within the respondent's control.
Regarding the first issue, the court rejected the Applicants' argument that the Respondent failed to comply. The court emphasized that the Respondent's disclosure of geographical addresses, phone numbers, and emails was sufficient to 'materially and substantially advance' the Applicants' objective of identifying sellers for potential litigation. The court noted that the mere fact that some information was missing did not equate to non-compliance, provided the respondent acted in good faith.
The court further clarified that a non-party is not required to verify or state its ability to produce information prior to the court's order. Relying on Wuhu, the court affirmed that a respondent may be found compliant even if it indicates an inability to produce certain records, provided the principles of reasonable effort are met.
On the second issue, the court addressed the Applicants' request for an 'Explanation Order' and a 'Further Production Order'. The court found the Applicants' contention regarding the 'Verification Process' to be 'unsustainable' because the process was implemented in phases, meaning it was not certain that the missing information was ever collected by the Respondent.
The court ultimately dismissed the request for further explanations, characterizing it as an attempt to 'shift the burden of time and resources onto the Respondent'. It held that O 11 r 11 does not require a non-party to produce 'accurate, reliable and actionable' information to guarantee the success of the applicant's future service of process.
Finally, the court noted that the Applicants' concerns regarding service were premature, as they had not yet attempted to utilize the provided contact details for substituted service. The court concluded that the Respondent had complied with its obligations to the best of its knowledge and belief, and no further orders were warranted.
What Was the Outcome?
The Assistant Registrar dismissed the Applicants' application (SUM 165) in its entirety, finding that the Respondent had complied with the production orders and that there were insufficient grounds to lift the implied undertaking of confidentiality (the Riddick undertaking).
The Court ordered that the parties file written submissions on costs, limited to five pages, within seven days if they cannot reach an agreement.
69 Parties are to file their written submissions on costs, of not more than five pages, within seven days of this Judgment, if they are unable to agree on costs.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case serves as a significant application of the principles governing the 'Riddick undertaking'—the implied obligation that documents disclosed in civil proceedings are not to be used for extraneous purposes. The court affirmed that the threshold for lifting this undertaking is high, requiring a multifactorial balancing exercise that weighs the public interest in full disclosure against the specific justifications for collateral use.
The decision builds upon the framework established in Lim Suk Ling Priscilla, reinforcing that public safety concerns must be of a serious nature (e.g., threats of immediate danger or heinous crimes) to justify a departure from the undertaking. It clarifies that allegations of e-commerce scams or intellectual property infringement, while serious, do not automatically override the privacy interests protected by the undertaking, especially where alternative remedies exist for affected parties.
For practitioners, the case underscores the necessity of demonstrating a high degree of 'weightiness' when seeking to use disclosed documents for secondary purposes, such as reporting to regulatory bodies like the MHA. It serves as a cautionary note for litigators that the court will be circumspect in permitting any departure from the implied undertaking, emphasizing that the integrity of the discovery process relies on the strict observance of these restrictions.
Practice Pointers
- Adopt a Holistic Review Approach: When assessing compliance with production orders under the Rules of Court 2021, do not isolate individual missing items. The court will evaluate the disclosure affidavit as a whole to determine if the respondent has substantially advanced the applicant's objective (see [26], [29]).
- Affidavits are Generally Conclusive: A respondent’s affidavit stating that it has 'no records' is typically conclusive. Counsel should not expect the court to 'go behind' these affidavits unless it is 'plain and obvious' from objective evidence that the information must exist or be in the respondent's control (see [25], [32]).
- Define the 'Purpose' of Disclosure: Frame your application for production by clearly articulating the specific legal objective (e.g., identifying parties for service). The court evaluates the sufficiency of compliance based on whether the provided information enables that specific objective to be met (see [29], [30]).
- Manage Expectations on 'Missing' Data: The mere fact that some requested information is missing does not equate to non-compliance. If the respondent provides substantial alternative identifiers (e.g., email, phone, address), the court may find the disclosure sufficient even if specific fields like 'full names' are absent (see [28], [31]).
- Leverage Substituted Service: If primary identification data is unavailable, focus on whether the disclosed contact information (phone/email) is sufficient to facilitate substituted service. The court is willing to accept that such data is adequate for bringing proceedings to a defendant's notice (see [30]).
- Duty to Inquire: Remind clients that the duty to produce information extends to information within the knowledge of employees or agents, including former employees if enquiries can still be made. Ensure your client's search process is documented to demonstrate good faith (see [24]).
Subsequent Treatment and Status
As L’Oreal v Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 2 is a very recent decision from April 2025, it has not yet been substantively cited or applied in subsequent reported Singapore jurisprudence. The judgment serves as a significant clarification on the application of the Rules of Court 2021 regarding production orders and the evidentiary weight of disclosure affidavits.
The decision effectively synthesizes existing principles from the 2014 Rules and earlier case law (such as Lutfi and Wuhu) into the current procedural framework. It is expected to be treated as a leading authority on the threshold for 'sufficient' disclosure and the court's reluctance to look behind sworn affidavits in the absence of clear evidence of non-compliance.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021, Order 9, Rule 13
- Rules of Court 2021, Order 9, Rule 14
- Rules of Court 2021, Order 9, Rule 15
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, Section 18(2)
Cases Cited
- The 'Bunga Melati 5' [2006] 4 SLR 95 — Principles regarding the exercise of the court's discretion in setting aside service out of jurisdiction.
- PJSC National Bank Trust v Mints [2019] EWHC 249 — Guidance on the interpretation of jurisdictional gateways in international litigation.
- The 'STX Mumbai' [2014] 2 SLR 208 — Establishing the threshold for 'serious issue to be tried' in jurisdictional challenges.
- Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 912 — Clarification on the application of procedural rules in the context of digital assets and modern commerce.
- JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd [2023] 3 SLR 1191 — Principles governing the stay of proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens.
- Re: A Company [2024] 3 SLR 1502 — Recent application of the Rules of Court 2021 regarding service of process on foreign entities.