Kiri Industries v DyStar Global Holdings: Damages Assessment for Breach of Non-Compete

Kiri Industries Limited and Manishkumar Pravinchandra Kiri appealed against the assessment of damages and award of costs in favor of DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd by the Singapore International Commercial Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, adjusting the damages calculation related to Kiri's breach of non-competition and non-solicitation obligations. The primary legal issue was the quantum of damages due to Kiri's breach of contract.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding damages assessment for Kiri's breach of non-compete obligations to DyStar. The court adjusted the damages calculation, favoring Kiri.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Kiri Industries LimitedAppellantCorporationAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte LtdRespondentCorporationDamages AwardedPartial
Manishkumar Pravinchandra KiriAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudge of AppealNo
Robert FrenchInternational JudgeNo
Sir Bernard RixInternational JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Dhillon Dinesh SinghAllen & Gledhill LLP
Lim Dao KaiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Dhivya Rajendra NaiduAllen & Gledhill LLP
Margaret Joan Ling Wei WeiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Teh Shi YingAllen & Gledhill LLP
Eunice Lau Guan TingDrew & Napier LLC
Yim Wing Kuen JimmyDrew & Napier LLC
Lee Song YanDrew & Napier LLC
KevinDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Kiri and DyStar formed a joint venture company.
  2. Kiri agreed to non-competition and non-solicitation obligations.
  3. Kiri breached these obligations by selling to FOTL, Brandix, and Hayleys.
  4. The trial court assessed damages against Kiri for these breaches.
  5. Kiri appealed the assessment of damages, particularly regarding sales to Hayleys.
  6. Kiri argued its sales were in a different market segment than DyStar's.
  7. The Court of Appeal adjusted the damages calculation based on alternative base years.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Kiri Industries Ltd and another v DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 16 of 2020 and 48 of 2020, [2020] SGCA(I) 05

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Assessment judgment issued by the Singapore International Commercial Court
Costs judgment issued by the Singapore International Commercial Court
Judgment reserved
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court upheld the finding of breach but adjusted the damages calculation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of non-competition clause
      • Breach of non-solicitation clause
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] 2 SLR 1
  2. Assessment of Damages
    • Outcome: The court adjusted the trial court's assessment, finding the original assessment arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Causation of loss
      • Quantum of damages
      • Appropriate base year for calculating lost sales
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623
      • [2011] 1 SLR 150
      • [1911] 2 KB 786
      • [1951] 1 KB 422

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Appeals
  • Damages Assessment

11. Industries

  • Chemical Manufacturing
  • Textiles

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries LtdSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2020] 3 SLR 42SingaporeCited as the assessment judgment being appealed against.
DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd and othersSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 28SingaporeCited as the costs judgment being appealed against.
DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd and others and another suitSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 1SingaporeCited for defining acronyms and other terms used in the case.
Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the finding that Kiri had breached non-competition provisions in respect of Brandix and Hayleys.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must do the best it can on the evidence available when precise evidence is not available.
MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd and another v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2011] 1 SLR 150SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must do the best it can on the evidence available when precise evidence is not available.
Chaplin v HicksEnglish Court of AppealYes[1911] 2 KB 786England and WalesCited for the principle that the fact that damages cannot be assessed with certainty does not relieve the wrongdoer of the necessity of paying damages.
Biggin & Co Ld v Permanite, LdEnglish High CourtYes[1951] 1 KB 422England and WalesCited for the principle that where precise evidence is obtainable, the court naturally expects to have it, and where it is not, the court must do the best it can.
Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries, LimitedHouse of LordsYes[1942] AC 601United KingdomCited for the principle that an appellate court is always reluctant to interfere with a finding of the trial judge on any question of fact, but it is particularly reluctant to interfere with a finding on damages.
Tan Boon Heng v Lau Pang Cheng DavidCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 718SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court is always reluctant to interfere with a finding of the trial judge on any question of fact, but it is particularly reluctant to interfere with a finding on damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Non-competition
  • Non-solicitation
  • Damages assessment
  • Lost sales
  • Base year
  • Causation
  • Quantum
  • Dyes
  • Joint venture

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • non-compete
  • damages
  • assessment
  • dyes
  • Kiri
  • DyStar
  • Hayleys
  • Singapore
  • appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Assessment of Damages85
Damages80
Commercial Disputes75
Breach of Contract60
Contract Law60
Costs50
Joint Venture45
Arbitration40

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Commercial Dispute
  • Damages
  • Competition Law