| |
| |
 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
SINGAPORE: Can documents you toss into the trash be seized and used as evidence in a court case? The signal from the Court of Appeal seems to be: Don't rubbish the idea straight off.
In what Singapore's Chief Justice declared was the first time that questions of law have been raised here over the ownership of garbage, the courts allowed an appeal from a group of creditors who had a dump staked out, so as to dig up the dirt on their debtor.
Almost daily for six months, a group of private investigators hired by the creditors — various American investment funds — lurked around the common rubbish dump at Orchard Towers.
From a distance, they would watch cleaners deposit bags of trash. And after the cleaner contracted by two companies, Vestwin Trading and Hilltree Enterprise, made his drop-off, the investigators — taking care not to be spotted — moved in to pick up the bag of trash.
Picking through the teabags, leftover food and used tissue, they retrieved and pieced together documents that allegedly linked the two companies to PT Indah Kiat.
The firm — a member of Indonesia's Asia Pulp & Paper group, the world's largest pulp producer — had been ordered by an American court in April 2004 to pay US$76 million (S$115 million) to the group of creditors. The latter brought a legal action here to enforce this judgment.
But in February last year, High Court Judge Andrew Ang took the creditors to task for "improperly and/or illegally" obtaining confidential documents "through criminal means and/or civil wrongs".
Justice Ang also said that the Singapore courts should not "send a wrong signal encouraging vigilantism". He ruled against the creditors and ordered an inquiry into the losses or damages suffered by the two companies. The creditors appealed.
On Friday, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, one of the three judges presiding over the hearing, said issues of ownership of rubbish would have "serious repercussions for everybody", as people often leave their trash bins outside their homes.
At what point, he asked, do you relinquish ownership of your trash?
The creditors' lawyer, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, argued that the trash could no longer be regarded as the two companies' property since they had abandoned the documents.
The rubbish was retrieved not from their offices — or even their own trash bin — but from a third party's trash bag, he pointed out. Moreover, the documents were not marked as confidential or disposed of with any precautions.
But Vestwin and Hilltree's lawyer, Senior Counsel Vinodh Coomaraswamy, countered that any rubbish left at the common dump "remained his clients' property" until it was collected by authorised persons.
"It is not for all and sundry to come and help themselves," he said, saying such actions amounted to "theft".
Justice V K Rajah, another judge on the panel, pointed out: What if the authorised trash collector was also contracted to use the material for recycling purposes? Would the original owner retain the rights to the documents and their confidentiality?
Justice Andrew Phang, the third judge, also suggested that the private investigators may have resorted to this as the most effective way to get information from debtors.
Mr Tan argued that the trial judge had erred in his summary judgment last year, and that only a trial would reveal whether the companies could assert rightful ownership of the trash.
The Court of Appeal agreed. CJ Chan said the issues and facts of this case, revolving around the ownership of the trash and confidentiality of the documents in it, would be heard during a trial. - TODAY/ac
|
