Radcoflex v James Lim: Copyright Infringement & Breach of Contract Dispute

Radcoflex Australia Pty Ltd and Radcoflex Singapore Pte Ltd sued James Lim Hwa Chin and Keyser Technologies & Trading Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract. Radcoflex claimed that Lim, a former employee, infringed their copyright by copying their machine design and breached his employment contract by disclosing trade secrets. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Lee Seiu Kin, dismissed all claims, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to prove copyright subsistence, infringement, or breach of contract.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed in their entirety.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Radcoflex sues James Lim for copyright infringement and breach of contract. The court dismissed all claims due to lack of evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Radcoflex Australia Pty LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Radcoflex Singapore Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
James Lim Hwa ChinDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon
Keyser Technologies & Trading Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Maurice CheongElla Cheong & G Mirandah
P SivakumarElla Cheong & G Mirandah
Boey Swee SiangBih Li & Lee
Anthony Lee Hwee KhiamBih Li & Lee

4. Facts

  1. Radcoflex Australia manufactures bellows, flexible hoses, and pipe expansion joints.
  2. Radcoflex Singapore manufactures bellows under license from Radcoflex Australia.
  3. James Lim was employed by Radcoflex Singapore as a Sales Engineer.
  4. Lim resigned from Radcoflex Singapore and later joined Keyser Technologies as managing director.
  5. Radcoflex discovered Keyser Technologies was manufacturing similar bellows.
  6. Radcoflex claimed Lim used confidential information and copied their machine design.
  7. Radcoflex alleged copyright infringement and breach of contract.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Radcoflex Australia Pty Ltd and Another v James Lim Hwa Chin and Another, Suit 1598/1999, [2000] SGHC 96

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Keyser Technologies & Trading Pte Ltd incorporated.
Radcoflex Singapore Pte Ltd offered employment to James Lim Hwa Chin.
James Lim Hwa Chin accepted employment offer from Radcoflex Singapore Pte Ltd.
James Lim Hwa Chin employed by Radcoflex Singapore Pte Ltd.
James Lim Hwa Chin tendered resignation.
James Lim Hwa Chin commenced employment with Keyser Technologies & Trading Pte Ltd.
James Lim Hwa Chin appointed director and managing director of Keyser Technologies & Trading Pte Ltd.
James Lim Hwa Chin's wife appointed director of Keyser Technologies & Trading Pte Ltd.
Radcoflex Singapore Pte Ltd learnt that James Lim Hwa Chin offered to sell bellows to their customers.
Representatives from Radcoflex visited Keyser Technologies & Trading Pte Ltd's premises.
Plaintiffs commenced legal proceedings.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Copyright Infringement
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants infringed their copyright.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reproduction in a material form
      • Indirect copying
      • Subsistence of copyright
      • Ownership of copyright
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant breached his employment contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Non-disclosure of trade secrets
      • Breach of duty of good faith and fidelity

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction
  2. Damages
  3. Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Copyright Infringement
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Manufacturing
  • Engineering

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ladbrooke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) LtdN/AYes[1964] WLR 273N/ACited for the principle that whether one drawing amounts to a substantial reproduction of another depends on the quality of what is copied.
King Features Syndicate Inc v O. and M. Kleeman LtdN/AYes[1941] AC 417N/ACited for the principle that a 3-dimensional object copied from another 3-dimensional object which is a copy of a drawing, is a reproduction of that drawing for the purposes of copyright infringement.
L.B. (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products LtdN/AYes[1979] RPC 551N/ACited for the principle that indirect copying amounts to production of a version of the drawings.
British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co LtdN/AYes[1986] 2 WLR 400N/ACited for the principle that indirect copying of a drawing relating purely to a functional design constitutes infringement of copyright in the drawing.
Faccenda Chicken Ltd v FowlerN/ANo[1986] 1 All ER 617N/ACited to support the argument that information cannot be confidential if the plaintiffs gave the 1st Defendant access to it although it was not necessary for his work.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Copyright ActSingapore
Evidence ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bellows
  • Copyright
  • Infringement
  • Trade secrets
  • Confidential information
  • Employment contract
  • Indirect copying
  • Artistic works
  • Literary works

15.2 Keywords

  • Copyright infringement
  • Breach of contract
  • Bellows manufacturing
  • Trade secrets
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Intellectual Property Law90
Copyright Infringement90
Breach of Contract40
Contract Law40
Employment Law30
Confidentiality Breach30
Corporate Law20

16. Subjects

  • Intellectual Property
  • Contract
  • Employment