Tullett Prebon (Singapore) Ltd and Others v Spring Mark Geoffrey and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 17 May 2007
• Date: 17 May 2007
• Docket Number: Suit No 855 of 2006 (Registrar's
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Tullett Prebon (Singapore) Ltd and others

Plaintiff

and

Spring Mark Geoffrey and another

Defendant

[2007] SGHC 71

Andrew Ang J

Suit No 855 of 2006 (Registrar's Appeal No 101 of 2007)

High Court

Civil Procedure–Interrogatories–Application for leave–Parties signing settlement agreement containing confidentiality clause–Terms of agreement leaked to media –Both parties seeking interrogatories against media companies and/or journalists–One party given leave to serve interrogatories on media–Whether other party should also be given leave–Constitutional Law–Fundamental liberties–Freedom of speech–Interrogatories sought against journalist to expose identity of source–Whether “newspaper rule” existing in Singapore

By an agreement (“the Settlement Agreement”), the plaintiffs agreed with the defendants to a settlement of certain actions against the defendants. The Settlement Agreement provided for a settlement sum to be paid by BGC International (Singapore Branch) (“BGC”) to the plaintiffs and for all parties to keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement confidential. Subsequently, Reuters news service, The Straits Times (“the ST”) and The Business Times (“the BT”) published news reports containing statements concerning the quantum of the settlement sum agreed to be paid.

As BGC failed to pay the settlement sum, the plaintiffs brought an action against BGC. The plaintiffs also sought damages against the defendants for breach of the confidentiality obligation under the Settlement Agreement. In their defence, BGC alleged that the plaintiffs had breached the said confidentiality obligation under the Settlement Agreement and thus BGC was not obliged to pay the settlement sum. In the alternative, it averred that on account of the plaintiffs' breach of confidentiality, lesser damages were due.

The plaintiffs sought leave to serve interrogatories on Ms Mia Shanley (“Shanley”) of Reuters news service, while the defendants sought to do the same on the ST and the BT. The ST and the BT journalists were ordered by the court to disclose their source and duly complied, naming Huntington Communications Pte Ltd (“Huntington”). The defendants were thereafter given leave to serve interrogatories on Huntington by an assistant registrar, but the plaintiffs' application to do the same with respect to Shanley was denied by another.

The plaintiffs appealed against both decisions. The appeal against Huntington being required to answer interrogatories was dismissed. This appeal concerned the other decision not to grant the plaintiffs leave to serve interrogatories on Shanley.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The interrogatories sought were relevant. The main question was whether the confidentiality obligation was of such paramount importance that the plaintiffs' breach of the same would release the defendants from having to pay the settlement sum. In this context, if the defendants themselves had breached the confidentiality obligation even earlier than the plaintiffs, it would be open to the plaintiffs to contend that it did not lie in the mouth of the defendants to assert that the confidentiality obligation was of fundamental importance: at [15].

(2) The defendants' submission that the interrogatories were not necessary as the plaintiffs had not been hampered in their pleadings was unmeritorious: at [18].

(3) It was totally unrealistic to expect that the plaintiffs would have been able to discover an answer from another source when the passing of the information was between an unnamed source and the journalist. It seemed unreasonable to have required the plaintiffs to embark upon an exercise akin to searching for a needle in the haystack: at [19].

(4) There was a need for the court to be even-handed and to be seen to be so. Both the ST and the BT reporters had been compelled to answer interrogatories served on them by the defendants. The plaintiffs' appeal against Huntington being required to answer interrogations had also been dismissed by the court. It was axiomatic that like cases should be treated alike. Shanley's case could not be distinguished from those of the ST and the BT reporters: at [19] and [20].

(5) There was no “newspaper rule” in...