Littau v Astrata: Interim Injunction & Non-Compete Agreement Dispute

In Littau Robin Duane v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed applications related to an interim injunction and search orders obtained by Astrata against its former group regional director, Littau, for allegedly breaching a non-compete agreement and divulging confidential information. Astrata filed a claim and counterclaim alleging breach of duty and the non-compete agreement. The court varied one aspect of the order but otherwise upheld the injunction and search orders, finding a strong prima facie case against Littau. Littau's application to set aside the orders was largely dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Orders granted to the defendant were ordered to stand, except for the part of paragraph 2 that allowed the defendant to use the information and documents disclosed or produced pursuant to the search orders for purposes of any claim against the plaintiff as well as the Tridex Companies in and outside Singapore.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Former director Littau faces injunction for allegedly breaching a non-compete agreement with Astrata. The court upheld the injunction and search orders.

1.7 Decision Date

9 December 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Littau Robin Duane	Plaintiff	Individual	Orders granted to the defendant were ordered to stand, except for the part of paragraph 2 that allowed the defendant to use the information and documents disclosed or produced pursuant to the search orders for purposes of any claim against the plaintiff as well as the Tridex Companies in and outside Singapore.	Partial	Anthony Lee, Gan Kam Yuin, Joana Lee
Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Orders granted to the defendant were ordered to stand, except for the part of paragraph 2 that allowed the defendant to use the information and documents disclosed or produced pursuant to the search orders for purposes of any claim against the plaintiff as well as the Tridex Companies in and outside Singapore.	Partial	Andy Leck, Gerald Kuppusamy, Jennifer Fong Lee Cheng, Shaun Lee

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Anthony Lee	Bih Li & Lee
Gan Kam Yuin	Bih Li & Lee
Joana Lee	Bih Li & Lee
Andy Leck	Wong & Leow LLC
Gerald Kuppusamy	Wong & Leow LLC
Jennifer Fong Lee Cheng	Wong & Leow LLC
Shaun Lee	Wong & Leow LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff was a former group regional director of the defendant.
Plaintiff signed a non-compete agreement with the defendant in 2007.
Plaintiff resigned from the defendant on 11 September 2009, with a last day of employment of 10 December 2009.
Defendant purported to dismiss the plaintiff summarily on 9 December 2009.
Defendant alleged that the plaintiff breached his duties by giving information to certain entities.
Defendant obtained an interim injunction and search orders against the plaintiff on 21 June 2010.
Plaintiff admitted to meeting with customers and business partners of the defendant after his employment ended.
Plaintiff deleted information from a company-provided MacBook shortly before returning it.

5. Formal Citations

Littau Robin Duane v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd, Suit No 156 of 2010 (Summonses No 3229 of 2010 and 3351 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 361

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2005-03-01	Plaintiff began employment with the defendant.
2007-01-01	Plaintiff signed a non-compete agreement with the defendant.
2009-09-11	Plaintiff gave three months’ notice of his resignation.
2009-12-09	Defendant purported to dismiss the plaintiff summarily.
2009-12-10	Plaintiff's last day of employment.
2010-06-21	Defendant obtained an interim injunction and search orders against the plaintiff.
2010-06-25	Search orders were extended by the court.
2010-04-19	Email sent from James Lau to the plaintiff.
2010-12-10	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Non-Compete Agreement
- Outcome: The court found a strong prima facie case of breach of the non-compete agreement by the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Solicitation of customers
  - Divulging confidential information
  - Competition with former employer
- Related Cases:
  - [1975] AC 396
Validity of Search Order
- Outcome: The court upheld the search orders, finding that the non-disclosures alleged by the plaintiff would not have materially affected the decision to grant the orders.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Material non-disclosure
  - Compliance with terms of search order
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 907

8. Remedies Sought

Injunction
Damages
Setting aside of orders
Return of items
Inquiry as to damages
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Information Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon	N/A	Yes	[1975] AC 396	N/A	Cited for the factors to consider when deciding whether or not to grant an injunction.
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 907	Singapore	Cited for the tests to be satisfied for the grant of a search order.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Non-compete agreement
Interim injunction
Search order
Confidential information
Relevant customer
Restricted territory
Termination date
MacBook
Erasure function
Prima facie case

15.2 Keywords

non-compete
injunction
search order
employment
confidentiality
telematics

16. Subjects

Contract Dispute
Employment Law
Injunctions
Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Injunctions
Contract Law
Restraint of Trade
Civil Procedure