Case Details
- Citation: [2024] SGHC 299
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2024-11-26
- Judges: Kwek Mean Luck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Sang Cheol Woo
- Defendant/Respondent: Spackman, Charles Choi and others
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Amendments, Abuse of Process — Riddick principle
- Statutes Referenced: Civil Law Act, Civil Law Act 1909, Legal Profession Act, Legal Profession Act 1966
- Cases Cited: [2020] SGCA 64, [2021] SGHC 154, [2022] SGHC 298, [2024] SGHC 299, [2022] SGHC(A) 5, [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch), [2020] 2 SLR 695, [2015] 2 SLR 578, [2015] 4 SLR 597, [2007] All ER (D) 279 (Jan), [1963] Ch 199, [2020] 2 SLR 912, [2015] NSWSC 2104, [2021] 2 SLR 584
- Judgment Length: 23 pages, 6,317 words
Summary
This case concerns an appeal by the plaintiff, Sang Cheol Woo, against the decision of the Assistant Registrar (AR) to grant the 2nd and 3rd defendants leave to amend their defense in an ongoing civil suit. The key issues are whether the proposed amendments amount to an abuse of process, whether the Riddick principle applies to the plaintiff's disclosure of a contingency fee arrangement with his foreign counsel, and whether there is a real question to be determined by the amendment application.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Sang Cheol Woo, had filed a civil suit (HC/S 211/2019) against several defendants, including Charles Choi Spackman (the 1st defendant), Kim Jae Seung (the 2nd defendant), and Kim So Hee (the 3rd defendant). The suit involved the enforcement of a foreign judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant in South Korea.
The proceedings in the civil suit were bifurcated, with the first stage dealing with the enforceability of the foreign judgment against the 1st defendant. In November 2022, the High Court allowed the plaintiff's claim for the enforcement of the foreign judgment in Singapore.
The second stage of the proceedings, which has not yet been determined, involves the plaintiff's claims of lawful and unlawful means conspiracy against all the defendants.
In a separate defamation suit (HC/S 592/2020) brought by Spackman Entertainment Group Limited against the plaintiff, the plaintiff disclosed in his 6th affidavit that he had entered into a contingency fee arrangement with his foreign counsel, Kobre & Kim LLP, to pay them a certain additional amount out of the net recovery from the enforcement of the foreign judgment.
The 2nd and 3rd defendants then applied to amend their defense in the civil suit, seeking to argue that the plaintiff's contingency fee arrangement with his foreign counsel was prohibited and/or unenforceable under Singapore law, and that the plaintiff's claim in the civil suit was therefore tainted by maintenance and/or champerty and was an abuse of process.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case are:
1. Whether the "proceedings" for the purposes of Order 20 Rule 5(1) of the Rules of Court are still ongoing, given that the first stage of the trial on the enforceability of the foreign judgment has been determined, but the second stage on the defendants' liability for conspiracy has not yet been determined.
2. Whether the proposed amendments by the 2nd and 3rd defendants amount to an abuse of the court process.
3. Whether the Riddick principle, which prohibits the use of documents disclosed in legal proceedings for any purpose other than that for which they were disclosed, applies to non-parties and to documents that were not disclosed under compulsion of a court order.
4. Whether there is a real question to be determined by the proposed amendment application.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the court noted that the proceedings in the civil suit were bifurcated, and the second stage on the defendants' liability for conspiracy had not yet been determined. Therefore, the court held that the "proceedings" for the purposes of Order 20 Rule 5(1) were still ongoing.
On the issue of abuse of process, the court acknowledged that the proposed amendments could potentially allow the 2nd and 3rd defendants to attack the final and conclusive judgment that had been granted against the 1st defendant. However, the court also noted that the authorities, such as the English case of Kireeva v Zolotova & Anor, suggest that the fact that a funding agreement may be against public policy and unenforceable does not necessarily mean that the proceedings themselves are an abuse of process. The court held that this issue should be ventilated with the benefit of all evidence surrounding the contingency fee arrangement and full submissions after trial.
Regarding the Riddick principle, the court held that it applies to non-parties, as per the Court of Appeal's decision in ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd. However, the court also found that the Riddick principle does not apply to the plaintiff's 6th affidavit, as it was not disclosed under compulsion of a court order. The court further noted that even if the Riddick principle did apply, the open court exception in Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim and another would apply.
Finally, on the issue of whether there is a real question to be determined, the court held that the proposed amendments were not unsustainable and that the defendants should be allowed to ventilate the issue with the benefit of all evidence and full submissions.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the AR's decision to grant the 2nd and 3rd defendants leave to amend their defense. The court held that the proceedings in the civil suit were still ongoing, the proposed amendments did not necessarily amount to an abuse of process, the Riddick principle did not apply to the plaintiff's 6th affidavit, and there was a real question to be determined by the amendment application.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons:
1. It provides guidance on the application of the Riddick principle, particularly in the context of documents disclosed to resist interlocutory applications rather than under compulsion of a court order.
2. It highlights the court's approach to assessing whether proposed amendments to a defense amount to an abuse of process, even if the amendments could potentially undermine a previous judgment.
3. It demonstrates the court's willingness to allow parties to ventilate issues related to the legality of funding arrangements, such as contingency fee agreements, even if they may be against public policy, as long as there is a real question to be determined.
4. The case is also noteworthy for its discussion of the bifurcation of proceedings and the court's interpretation of the term "proceedings" for the purposes of the Rules of Court.
Overall, this judgment provides valuable guidance for legal practitioners on the complex issues of amendment of pleadings, abuse of process, and the application of the Riddick principle in civil litigation.
Legislation Referenced
- Civil Law Act
- Civil Law Act 1909
- Legal Profession Act
- Legal Profession Act 1966
Cases Cited
- [2020] SGCA 64
- [2021] SGHC 154
- [2022] SGHC 298
- [2024] SGHC 299
- [2022] SGHC(A) 5
- [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch)
- [2020] 2 SLR 695
- [2015] 2 SLR 578
- [2015] 4 SLR 597
- [2007] All ER (D) 279 (Jan)
- [1963] Ch 199
- [2020] 2 SLR 912
- [2015] NSWSC 2104
- [2021] 2 SLR 584
Source Documents
This article analyses [2024] SGHC 299 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.