Riedel-de Haen Ag v Liew Keng Pang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 13 April 1989
• Date: 13 April 1989
• Docket Number: Suit No 771 of 1988
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Riedel-de Haen AG

Plaintiff

and

Liew Keng Pang

Defendant

[1989] SGHC 37

Chan Sek Keong J

Suit No 771 of 1988

High Court

Civil Procedure–Injunctions–Interlocutory injunction–Anton Piller order–Anton Piller order obtained requiring party to disclose names of suppliers and customers of goods bearing trademarks–Whether order infringed party's privilege against self-incrimination–Section 21 Copyright Act 1956 (c 74) (UK)–Section 72 Supreme Court Act 1981 (c 54) (UK)–Sections 70 and 74 Trademarks Act (Cap 206, 1970 Rev Ed)–Sections 4 and 14 Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions and Safety Requirements) Act (Cap 53, 1985 Rev Ed)–Charter of Justice 1826–Sections 2 (1), 134 (1), 134 (2) and 134 (3) Evidence Act (Cap 5, 1970 Rev Ed)–Section 32 Evidence Act 1832 (Act 2 of 1832) (India)–Evidence–Principles–Privilege against self-incrimination–Anton Piller order obtained requiring party to disclose names of suppliers and customers of goods bearing trademarks–Party claiming that order infringed privilege against self-incrimination–Whether privilege against self-incrimination withdrawn by s 134 Evidence Act (Cap 5, 1970 Rev Ed)–Whether s 134 Evidence Act applicable to affidavits–Section 2 (1) Evidence Act (Cap 5, 1970 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“Witness”–Section 134 Evidence Act (Cap 5, 1970 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff obtained an Anton Piller order against the defendant. The terms of the order were that the defendant must file an affidavit disclosing, inter alia, the names of his suppliers and customers of goods bearing the plaintiff's trademarks. The defendant applied for the order to be discharged on the ground that it infringed the privilege against self-incrimination in that his answers would incriminate him in respect of offences under the Trademarks Act (Cap 206, 1970 Rev Ed) and the Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions and Safety Requirements) Act (Cap 53, 1985 Rev Ed). The plaintiff argued that the privilege against self-incrimination had been withdrawn by s 134 of the Evidence Act (Cap 5, 1970 Rev Ed) (“the Act”).

Held, discharging the order:

(1) The privilege against self-incrimination was one of the principles of English law which had been received in Singapore by virtue of the Charter of Justice 1826. In civil proceedings, the privilege extended to discovery of documents which would tend to criminate or subject the defendant to a penalty or forfeiture: at [12].

(2) Before the privilege against self-incrimination could successfully be claimed, it had to be shown that there was a real risk that the incriminating answer or answers would expose the defendant to arrest or prosecution. Both parties agreed that such risk existed: at [7] and [9].

(3) Whether s 134 of the Act abrogated or merely qualified the privilege against self-incrimination turned on the meaning of the word “witness”. In the context of s 134, the meaning of “witness” had to be determined by the nature of the obligation imposed on him by that section. It was clear that the witness referred to in s 134 was a person who was testifying at a trial or other judicial proceeding where the Act was applicable: at [16], [17] and [20].

(4) Section 134 of the Act merely qualified the privilege against self-incrimination to the extent the witness gave oral testimony in judicial proceedings. This interpretation was placed beyond doubt by s 2 (1) of the Act, by virtue of which s 134 did not apply to any affidavit presented to the court: at [20], [22] and [23].

Haw Tua Tau v PP [1981-1982] SLR (R) 133; [1980-1981] SLR 73 (refd)

Lincoln International Ltd v Eagleton Direct Exports Ltd [1982] FSR 161 (refd)

PMK Rajah v Worldwide Commodities Sdn Bhd [1985] 1 MLJ 86 (folld)

Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre [1982] AC 380; [1981] 2 All ER 76 (folld)

Tay Bok Choon v Tahansan Sdn Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 433 (folld)

Television Broadcasts Ltd v Mandarin Video Holdings Sdn Bhd [1983] 2 MLJ 346 (not folld)

Westinghouse Uranium Contract, Re [1978] AC 547 (refd)

Charter of Justice1826

Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions and Safety Requirements) Act (Cap 53, 1985Rev Ed)ss 4, 14 (consd)

Evidence Act (Cap 5,1970Rev Ed)ss 2 (1), 134, 134 (1), 134 (2), 134 (3) (consd)

Trademarks Act (Cap 206,1970Rev Ed)ss 70, 74 (consd)

Copyright Act 1956 (c 74) (UK) s 21 (consd)

Evidence Act 1832 (Act 2 of 1832) (India) s 32 (consd)

Supreme Court Act 1981 (c 54) (UK) s 72 (consd)

Lawrence Boo (Haridass Ho & Partners) for the plaintiff

Tan Tee Jim (Allen & Gledhill) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

Chan Sek Keong J

1 This is an application by the defendant to discharge an Anton Piller order obtained by the plaintiffs on 21 April 1988 on the ground that it infringes the privilege against self-incrimination. The said order was in these terms:

1. 4 The defendant does within seven days of the service of the interim injunction and order of court herein upon him make and file an affidavit and serve a copy on the plaintiffs' solicitors, setting forth the names and addresses of all persons, firms, or companies:

   1. (a) from whom the defendant has obtained;

   2. (b) to whom the defendant has supplied; and

   3. (c) who have ordered from the defendant

the aforesaid goods bearing the plaintiffs' trade marks Riedel-de Haen which would offend the aforesaid injunction and the defendant to exhibit thereto to the affidavit all relevant invoices, orders, shipping documents and all relevant documents or copies thereof in the defendants' possession, custody or control and confirm that the transactions appearing therein refer to...