BAFCO Singapore Pte Ltd v Lee Tze Seng: Breach of Confidence & Interlocutory Injunction

In BAFCO Singapore Pte Ltd v Lee Tze Seng, the High Court of Singapore addressed the plaintiff's application for interim injunctive relief and a disclosure order against the defendants for misuse of confidential information. The plaintiff, BAFCO Singapore Pte Ltd, alleged that the former employees, Lee Tze Seng, Leo Ming Min Rachel, and Teo Wee Yong, along with Dafydd & Yong Pte Ltd and Vortikul Ltd, misused and disclosed the plaintiff’s confidential information without consent. The court granted the Disclosure and Procurement Injunctions, dismissing the Communications Injunction and Affidavit Order.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application for Disclosure and Procurement Injunctions allowed; application for Communications Injunction and Affidavit Order dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Interlocutory injunction sought for breach of confidence. The court granted the Disclosure and Procurement Injunctions, dismissing the Communications Injunction and Affidavit Order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BAFCO Singapore Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication for Disclosure and Procurement Injunctions allowedPartial
Lee Tze Seng (Li Shucheng)DefendantIndividualApplication for Disclosure and Procurement Injunctions allowed against defendantLost
Leo Ming Min RachelDefendantIndividualApplication for Disclosure and Procurement Injunctions allowed against defendantLost
Teo Wee Yong (Zhang Weiyong)DefendantIndividualApplication for Disclosure and Procurement Injunctions allowed against defendantLost
Dafydd & Yong Pte LtdDefendantCorporationApplication for Disclosure and Procurement Injunctions allowed against defendantLost
Vortikul LtdDefendantCorporationApplication for Disclosure and Procurement Injunctions allowed against defendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sim Wei Min StephanieBraddell Brothers LLP
Thng Yu Ting AngeliaBraddell Brothers LLP
Tan Zhi XinBraddell Brothers LLP
Luo Ling LingLuo Ling Ling LLC
Sharifah Nabilah Binte Syed OmarLuo Ling Ling LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff is the Singapore subsidiary of the BAFCO group of companies, which develops, manufactures, and sells HVLS fans.
  2. The first to third defendants are former employees of the plaintiff.
  3. The fifth defendant is a US-incorporated company which is also in the business of manufacturing and selling HVLS fans.
  4. The fourth defendant is a company that was incorporated in Singapore in 2016.
  5. Lee and Rachel are presently directors of D&Y.
  6. The plaintiff alleges that D&Y is distributing fans and cooling products, including HVLS fans manufactured by Vortikul.
  7. The plaintiff alleges that the Former Employees founded and were actively involved in D&Y while they were still employed by the plaintiff.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BAFCO Singapore Pte Ltd v Lee Tze Seng and others, Suit No 691 of 2020 (Summons No 3170 of 2020), [2020] SGHC 281

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lee, Rachel, and Teo employed by the plaintiff.
Dafydd & Yong Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore.
Rachel's employment with the plaintiff ended.
Lee and Teo's employment with the plaintiff ended.
Plaintiff filed Summons for Injunction.
Former Employees filed affidavits with undertakings.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Plaintiff filed written submissions.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Confidence
    • Outcome: The court found a serious question to be tried as regards the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Misuse of confidential information
      • Disclosure of confidential information without consent
  2. Interlocutory Injunction
    • Outcome: The court granted the Disclosure and Procurement Injunctions but dismissed the Communications Injunction.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Requirements for granting an interlocutory injunction
      • Balance of convenience
  3. Springboard Injunction
    • Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff’s application for the Communications Injunction.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unfair competitive advantage
      • Enjoyment of unfair advantage

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Disclosure Injunction
  2. Procurement Injunction
  3. Communications Injunction
  4. Affidavit Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of obligations
  • Wrongful inducement of breaches
  • Unlawful conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Injunctions

11. Industries

  • Manufacturing

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke and othersNot AvailableYes[2012] IRLR 458United KingdomCited for the definition of a springboard injunction.
Goh Seng Heng v RSP Investments and others and another matterNot AvailableYes[2017] 3 SLR 657SingaporeCited for the requirements for a springboard injunction in the context of a breach of confidence.
Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pte Ltd v Howden Insurance Brokers (S) Pte Ltd and othersNot AvailableNo[2015] 5 SLR 258SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must assess the relative strength of the parties’ rival arguments at the interlocutory stage when considering whether an interim springboard injunction ought to be granted.
Terrapin Ltd v Builders Supply Co (Hayes) LtdNot AvailableYes[1960] RPC 128Not AvailableCited as the first case in which springboard relief was granted.
i-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and othersCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 1130SingaporeCited for the approach to be taken in breach of confidence cases.
Adinop Co Ltd v Rovithai Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 808SingaporeCited for the principle that customer lists can have the necessary quality of confidence about them.
Tempcool Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Chong Vincent and othersHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 100SingaporeCited for the principle that a company’s pricing information such as quotations and pricing mechanisms is generally confidential.
Maldives Airports Co Ltd and another v GMR Malé International Airport Pte LtdNot AvailableYes[2013] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the principle that the court’s task is to assess which course of action carries the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to be wrong at trial.
ANB v ANC and another and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 522SingaporeCited for the principle that confidentiality, once breached, is lost forever.
American CyanamidNot AvailableYesAmerican CyanamidNot AvailableCited for the principle that there is a serious question to be tried, ie, whether the plaintiff has a “real prospect of succeeding in his claim for a permanent injunction at trial”.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), O 92 rr 4 and 5Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • High-volume, low-speed fans
  • HVLS fans
  • Confidential information
  • Interlocutory injunctive relief
  • Disclosure order
  • Springboard injunction
  • Customer Relationship Management
  • CRM
  • Tender Projects Information

15.2 Keywords

  • Breach of Confidence
  • Injunction
  • Interlocutory
  • Singapore
  • HVLS Fans
  • Confidential Information

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Confidence95
Injunctions90
Interlocutory injunction80
Contract Law30
Civil Procedure20

16. Subjects

  • Breach of Confidence
  • Injunctions
  • Interlocutory Injunctions
  • Commercial Litigation