Vestwin Trading v Obegi Melissa: Breach of Confidence & Conversion of Property
In Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and Another v Obegi Melissa and Others, the High Court of Singapore heard a case involving Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and Hill Tree Enterprise Pte Ltd (Plaintiffs) against Obegi Melissa, Oaktree Capital Management LLC, and others (Defendants). The plaintiffs claimed breach of confidence and conversion of property after the defendants obtained confidential documents from the plaintiffs' rubbish. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using or disclosing the confidential information and ordered an inquiry into the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Vestwin Trading sues Obegi Melissa for breach of confidence and conversion after confidential documents were obtained from their trash. The court granted a permanent injunction and ordered an inquiry into damages.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP | Defendant | Limited Liability Partnership | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| OCM Opportunities Fund III, LP | Defendant | Limited Liability Partnership | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Columbia/HCA Master Retirement Trust | Defendant | Trust | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Gramercy Emerging Markets Fund | Defendant | Other | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Obegi Melissa | Defendant | Individual | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Oaktree Capital Management LLC | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Gramercy Advisors LLC | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Tang Boon Swa | Defendant | Individual | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Nemesis Investigations Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Hill Tree Enterprise Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The first defendant deposed to three affidavits that were filed in Suit No 632 of 2004.
- The affidavits exhibited documents that the plaintiffs claimed were confidential.
- The ninth and tenth defendants allegedly obtained the documents surreptitiously and illegally.
- The ninth and tenth defendants passed the documents to the first to eighth defendants.
- The plaintiffs claimed the first to eighth defendants owed them a duty of confidence.
- The ninth defendant retrieved the plaintiffs’ trash bags from the common rubbish dump at Orchard Towers.
- The plaintiffs’ banks froze the plaintiffs’ accounts after the third to seventh defendants circulated a Mareva injunction.
5. Formal Citations
- Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and Another v Obegi Melissa and Others, Suit 542/2005, SIC 6394/2005, [2006] SGHC 107
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| New York judgment obtained in the Supreme Court of the State of New York | |
| Suit No 632 of 2004 commenced by the third to seventh defendants against, inter alia, PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Corporation | |
| From mid-January 2005 to 22 July 2005, the ninth defendant made almost daily trips to Orchard Towers where the plaintiffs’ offices were located and retrieved the plaintiffs’ trash bags | |
| Plaintiffs’ solicitors sent a letter to the defendants | |
| Court order for mandatory injunction dated | |
| Eighth defendant’s defence was filed | |
| Application for summary judgment was filed | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants owed the plaintiffs an obligation of confidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1969] RPC 41
- [1913] 2 Ch 469
- [1990] 1 AC 109
- [1992] 2 SLR 996
- Conversion
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants had committed the tort of conversion against the Plaintiffs’ Documents.
- Category: Substantive
- Abandonment of Property
- Outcome: The court held that putting rubbish out for collection does not amount to abandonment of property.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- (1957) 41 Cr App Rep 5
- Pleadings for Damages
- Outcome: The court ordered an inquiry as to the damage suffered by the Plaintiffs by reason of the Defendants’ breach of confidence and/or conversion of the Plaintiffs’ property.
- Category: Procedural
- Close of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court held that in a single action with multiple parties, pleadings close as against all defendants on the same date.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Permanent Injunction
- Mandatory Injunction
- Inquiry as to Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Confidence
- Conversion
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Breach of Confidence
- Conversion
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tokyo Investment Pte Ltd v Tan Chor Thing | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 170 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presence of legal issues in a summary judgment application does not automatically warrant granting leave to defend. |
| Cascade Shipping Inc v Eka Jaya Agencies (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 197 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will hear full arguments on a clear-cut question of law rather than grant leave to defend. |
| Williams v Phillips | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1957) 41 Cr App Rep 5 | England | Cited for the principle that putting rubbish out for collection does not amount to abandonment of property. |
| Simpson v Gowers | Unknown | Yes | (1981) 121 DLR (3d) 709 | Unknown | Cited for the definition of 'abandonment' as a total desertion and absolute relinquishment of private goods. |
| Lord Ashburton v Pape | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1913] 2 Ch 469 | England | Cited for the principle that the Court of Chancery restrains the publication of confidential information improperly or surreptitiously obtained. |
| Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1969] RPC 41 | England and Wales | Cited for the three essential elements of an action in breach of confidence. |
| Franklin v Giddins | Supreme Court of Queensland | Yes | [1978] Qd R 72 | Australia | Cited for the definition of confidential information as facts, schemes, or theories of sufficient value or importance to afford protection. |
| Prince Albert v Strange | Court of Chancery | Yes | (1849) 1 H & Tw 1; 47 ER 1302 | England | Cited as an example of the types of information protected under the law of confidence. |
| Duchess of Argyll v Duke of Argyll | High Court | Yes | [1967] Ch 302 | England | Cited as an example of the types of information protected under the law of confidence. |
| Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1984] 1 WLR 892 | England | Cited as an example of the types of information protected under the law of confidence. |
| Stephens v Avery | High Court | Yes | [1988] Ch 449 | England | Cited as an example of the types of information protected under the law of confidence. |
| Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) | House of Lords | Yes | [1990] 1 AC 109 | England | Cited as an example of the types of information protected under the law of confidence. |
| X Pte Ltd v CDE | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 996 | Singapore | Cited as an example of the types of information protected under the law of confidence. |
| Dr Lam Tai Hing v Dr Koo Chih Ling Linda | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 HKC 1 | Hong Kong | Cited as an example of the types of information protected under the law of confidence. |
| Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 WLR 804 | England | Cited as an example of the types of information protected under the law of confidence. |
| Douglas v Hello! Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] QB 967 | England | Cited as an example of the types of information protected under the law of confidence. |
| Tipping v Clarke | High Court | Yes | (1843) 2 Hare 383; 67 ER 157 | England | Cited as authority that books of account and other internal financial and commercially-sensitive information of a business enjoy protection under the law of confidence. |
| Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | High Court | Yes | [1979] Ch 344 | England | Cited to contrast with Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd, where telephone tapping was legal and the duty of confidentiality was overridden by public interest. |
| English & American Insurance Co Ltd v Herbert Smith | Unknown | Yes | [1988] FSR 232 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that recipients of illegally obtained information are bound by a duty of confidence, even if they received the information in good faith. |
| Susan Thomas v Elizabeth Pearce | Unknown | Yes | [2000] FSR 718 | Unknown | Cited for the proposition that a third-party recipient of confidential information must be found to have acted dishonestly to be liable for breach of confidence. |
| Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Limited v Secretary to the Department of Community Services and Health | Unknown | Yes | [1990] FSR 617 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the obligation of conscience is to respect the confidence, not merely to refrain from causing detriment to the plaintiff. |
| Prince Albert v Strange | Court of Chancery | Yes | (1849) 2 De G & Sm 652 at 697; 64 ER 293 at 312 | England | Cited for the principle that a person is entitled to relief whenever the produce of his private hours was invaded, irrespective of whether such invasion showed him in a creditable or a disadvantageous light. |
| Pollard v Photographic Company | High Court | Yes | (1888) 40 Ch D 345 | England | Cited for the principle that an injunction can be granted against the unauthorised disclosure of a photograph even if the breach causes only embarrassment or discomfort. |
| Ratcliffe v Evans | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1892] 2 QB 524 | England | Cited for the definition of special damage. |
| Ströms Bruks Aktie Bolag v John & Peter Hutchison | House of Lords | Yes | [1905] AC 515 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of general and special damages. |
| British Transport Commission v Gourley | House of Lords | Yes | [1956] AC 185 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of general damage in personal injury cases. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 14 r 14 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| Order 18 r 20 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| Order 25 r 1 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Confidential Information
- Breach of Confidence
- Conversion
- Permanent Injunction
- Abandonment
- Rubbish
- Pleadings
- Damages
- Mareva Injunction
- Garnishee Orders
15.2 Keywords
- breach of confidence
- conversion
- injunction
- confidential information
- rubbish
- abandonment
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Confidence | 95 |
| Torts | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Injunctions | 70 |
| Damages | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Property Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
- Confidentiality
- Injunctions