1. ) EUROPACK INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD 2. ) LEOW YIN SZE v 1. ) KANG MEI SIM 2. ) EPC PACKAGING (M) SDN BHD
Catchwords
Full trial – the Plaintiff commenced these present proceedings against the 1st Defendant, [a former employee of the 1st Plaintiff] and the 2nd Defendant (a company owned by the 1st Defendant) based on multiple causes of action i.e. breach of employment contract by the 1st Defendant for setting up one Propac Asia Enterprise and the 2nd Defendant which both shared businesses of a similar nature with the 1st Plaintiff; breach of duty of confidentiality (contractual and equitable) by the 1st Defendant for the alleged misappropriation and misuse of the 1st Plaintiff’s confidential information; breach of fiduciary duties and fidelity; unlawful interference with the 1st Plaintiff’s business and breach of an oral arrangement/understanding relating to a share incentive scheme between the parties. The Defendants mounted a counterclaim seeking damages for on the basis that these legal proceedings/suit were not filed to seek a genuine redress but commenced with the underlying intention to obtain the 1st Defendant’s shares in the 1st Plaintiff and to eliminate the Defendants who are the Plaintiffs’ competitors in the packaging trade. Issues: a. Whether the 1st Defendant breached the terms of the said letter of employment? b. Whether the 1st Defendant had committed a breach of her obligations relating to the 1st Plaintiff’s confidential information? c. Whether the 1st Defendant breached her fiduciary duties? d. Whether there was an unlawful interference with the 1st Plaintiff’s business by the 1st and 2nd Defendants? e. Whether D1 breached the share incentive scheme?; and f. Whether the Defendants’ counterclaim is with basis? Held: - The Court finds that the 1st Defendant has breached the terms of the letter of employment, fiduciary duties as well as her duty of confidentiality (contractual and equitable) for the misappropriation and misuse of the 1st Plaintiff’s confidential information i.e. the list of two suppliers. - The Court also finds that there was unlawful interference with the 1st Plaintiff’s business by the Defendants with the intention to injure the 1st Plaintiff which led to a customer diverting their order to the 2nd Defendant. - The Court finds that there is no breach of the share incentive scheme as there was no obligation on the 1st Defendant to return the 10% shares to the 2nd Plaintiff. - The Court allowed the Plaintiffs’ claim and issued an injunction and ordered nominal damages. The Defendants’ counterclaim is dismissed.
Judges (1)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (pa-22ncvc-144-08-2023)