Centre for Laser v Goh: Breach of Confidence & Conspiracy in Medical Clinic Competition

In Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v Goh Pui Kiat and others, the Singapore High Court addressed claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and conspiracy. The plaintiff, Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd (CLAM), alleged that the defendants, Goh Pui Kiat, Wong Hwee Leng, and GPK Clinic (Orchard) Pte Ltd, misused confidential patient information and engaged in unfair competition. The court found Goh Pui Kiat and GPK Clinic (Orchard) Pte Ltd liable for breach of confidence and conspiracy to injure CLAM through the misuse of confidential information. The court dismissed the remaining claims, including those for breach of fiduciary duty and diversion of patients. The court ordered damages to be paid to CLAM and issued an injunction against the defendants' use of the confidential information.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff in part; claims for breach of fiduciary duty and diversion of patients dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving breach of confidence and conspiracy claims between competing medical clinics. The court found the defendants liable for misusing confidential patient data.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
GPK Clinic (Orchard) Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against Defendant in partPartial
Goh Pui KiatDefendantIndividualJudgment against Defendant in partPartial
Wong Hwee LengDefendantIndividualClaims DismissedDismissed

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Thio Shen Yi SCTSMP Law Corporation
Lim Wei WenTSMP Law Corporation
GordonTSMP Law Corporation
Ngo Shuxiang NicholasTSMP Law Corporation
Wee Yu Ping NicoleTSMP Law Corporation
Pereira George BarnabasPereira & Tan LLC
Chua Yung Zheng, KeithPereira & Tan LLC

4. Facts

  1. CLAM was established by Dr. Kelvin Goh and Dr. Goh PK to run Orchard Clinic, providing medical and aesthetic services.
  2. Goh PK and Wong are directors and shareholders of GPKPL, which operates GPK Clinic in competition with CLAM.
  3. Goh PK copied CLAM's patient database to GPK Clinic's computers without informing Kelvin or Jacqueline.
  4. GPK Clinic sent greeting cards to Orchard Clinic patients, using information from the copied database.
  5. The Settlement Agreement contained a clause allowing parties to set up competing businesses and divert patients.
  6. Goh PK was assigned to work at Orchard Clinic on Wednesdays, Fridays and alternate Mondays and Saturdays.
  7. After GPK Clinic commenced operations, Goh PK would work at both clinics on his assigned days.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v Goh Pui Kiat and others, Suit No 672 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 72

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Kelvin and Goh PK started working together as partners in 8-11 Clinic & Surgery.
Medical Practice Consultants Pte Ltd incorporated to own and operate 8-11 Clinic.
Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd (CLAM) incorporated.
Kelvin and Goh PK signed a Confidentiality Contract and Mutual Undertaking.
Shareholder agreement signed by Kelvin, Jacqueline, Goh PK and Wong.
Kelvin and Goh PK signed an agreement placing Kelvin in charge of business operations.
Kelvin and Jacqueline set up SkintechMD Pte Ltd.
Goh PK commenced Suit No 1023 of 2013 against Kelvin for breach of the Confidentiality Contract.
Suit 1023/2013 settled after mediation; Settlement Agreement signed.
Goh PK incorporated 8-11 Clinic (Orchard) Pte Ltd.
Goh PK received a letter from the Ministry of Health regarding the use of the name '8-11'.
GPK Clinic commenced operations.
Suit 473/2014 was struck out.
Jacqueline commenced Originating Summons No 871 of 2014.
Jacqueline and Wong passed a board resolution authorizing CLAM to commence an action against the defendants.
Present suit filed pursuant to the Resolution.
Orchard Clinic ceased operations.
Decision given finding Goh PK and GPKPL liable for breach of confidentiality and conspiracy.
Order made for Goh PK and GPKPL to pay 40% of CLAM’s costs and disbursements.
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Confidence
    • Outcome: The court found Goh PK and GPKPL liable for breach of confidence for misusing CLAM's patient information.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unauthorized use of confidential information
      • Detriment to the originating party
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 1 SLR 163
      • [2014] 2 SLR 1045
  2. Conspiracy to Injure
    • Outcome: The court found Goh PK and GPKPL liable for conspiracy to injure CLAM through the breach of confidentiality.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Combination of two or more persons
      • Intention to cause damage or injury
      • Unlawful acts performed in furtherance of the agreement
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 1 SLR 860
      • [2016] 3 SLR 729
  3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court dismissed CLAM's claims against Goh PK and Wong for breach of fiduciary duty.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Interpretation of Contractual Terms
    • Outcome: The court interpreted Clause 10 of the Settlement Agreement to permit the diversion of patients from CLAM and MPC.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Injunction
  3. Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Confidence
  • Conspiracy to Injure
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Inducement of Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Breach of Contract
  • Injunctions

11. Industries

  • Healthcare
  • Aesthetic Medicine

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Clearlab SG Pte Ltd v Ting Chong Chai and othersN/AYes[2015] 1 SLR 163SingaporeCited for the elements that have to be satisfied for an action in breach of confidence.
Invenpro (M) Sdn Bhd v JCS Automation Pte Ltd and anotherN/AYes[2014] 2 SLR 1045SingaporeCited for the elements that have to be satisfied for an action in breach of confidence.
Ho Kang Peng v Scintronix Corp Ltd (formerly known as TTL Holdings Ltd)N/AYes[2014] 3 SLR 329SingaporeCited for the principle that a director's state of mind and knowledge is attributed to the company.
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and anotherN/AYes[2014] 1 SLR 860SingaporeCited for the elements of unlawful means conspiracy.
The Wellness Group Pte Ltd and another v OSIM International Ltd and others and another suitN/AYes[2016] 3 SLR 729SingaporeCited for the principle that a company may conspire with its director.
MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd and another v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd and another appealN/AYes[2011] 1 SLR 150SingaporeCited for the principle that difficulty in assessing damages is not a reason to award no damages or only nominal damages.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and anotherN/AYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623SingaporeCited for the principle that difficulty in assessing damages is not a reason to award no damages or only nominal damages.
Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 234SingaporeDistinguished on the basis that the respondents had failed in their main claim and had only succeeded on a subsidiary claim.
Day v DayN/AYes[2006] EWCA Civ 415N/ACited for the general rule that the unsuccessful party is the one who has to write the cheque at the end of the day.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 216ASingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Confidentiality Contract
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Clinic Information
  • Diversion of Patients
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Unlawful Means Conspiracy
  • Orchard Clinic
  • GPK Clinic
  • Clinic Assist

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of confidence
  • conspiracy
  • medical clinic
  • patient data
  • competition
  • fiduciary duty
  • contract law
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Confidence90
Fiduciary Duties80
Contract Law75
Chancery and Equity70
Torts70
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means70

16. Subjects

  • Breach of Confidence
  • Conspiracy
  • Contract Law
  • Medical Clinic Competition