Shanghai Afute v Tan Swee Meng: Contempt of Court for Using Confidential Recipes

Shanghai Afute Food and Beverage Management Co Ltd sued Tan Swee Meng and Stay Victory Industries Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for contempt of court, alleging that the defendants breached an injunction by continuing to use the plaintiff's confidential recipes. The court, presided over by Justice Chan Seng Onn, found the defendants in contempt for using the plaintiff's recipes, albeit with minor changes, and imposed a fine of $30,000.00 on Tan Swee Meng, with a default sentence of five weeks' imprisonment. The decision was made on 23 April 2021 and 22 June 2021.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Order of committal granted against the defendants; fine imposed on the first defendant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Shanghai Afute sued Tan Swee Meng for contempt of court for breaching an injunction against using confidential recipes. The court found Tan in contempt and imposed a fine.

1.7 Decision Date

21 June 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Shanghai Afute Food and Beverage Management Co Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Order of committal granted	Won	Chia Jin Chong Daniel of Coleman Street Chambers LLC Tan Ei Leen of Coleman Street Chambers LLC
Tan Swee Meng	Defendant	Individual	Fine imposed	Lost	Jaspreet Kaur Purba of Tito Isaac & Co LLP Chan Yew Loong Justin of Tito Isaac & Co LLP
Stay Victory Industries Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Order of committal granted	Lost	Jaspreet Kaur Purba of Tito Isaac & Co LLP Chan Yew Loong Justin of Tito Isaac & Co LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Seng Onn	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chia Jin Chong Daniel	Coleman Street Chambers LLC
Tan Ei Leen	Coleman Street Chambers LLC
Jaspreet Kaur Purba	Tito Isaac & Co LLP
Chan Yew Loong Justin	Tito Isaac & Co LLP

4. Facts

Shanghai Afute is the owner of the "After Coffee" brand.
Tan Swee Meng is a shareholder in Shanghai Afute and a director/shareholder in Stay Victory.
The plaintiff claimed the defendants used confidential recipes in breach of an injunction.
The defendants operated "Beyond Coffee" stores after the injunction was issued.
Tan claimed to have changed the recipes after the injunction.
The court found Tan's evidence regarding recipe changes to be untruthful.
The court found that the defendants had committed contempt of court by using the plaintiff’s recipes, albeit with minor changes.

5. Formal Citations

Shanghai Afute Food and Beverage Management Co Ltd v Tan Swee Meng and another, Suit No 854 of 2020(Summonses No 1432 and 1821 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 149

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-11-06	Master Franchise Agreement executed
2019-11-12	Stay Victory Industries Pte Ltd incorporated
2019-12-23	Letter of offer signed for Vivocity lease
2020-07-01	Beyond Coffee store opened at Vivocity
2020-09-07	Plaintiff filed application for injunctions and other orders
2020-10-23	Injunctions granted against the defendants
2020-10-27	Defendants claimed to have changed the entire menu at the Vivocity Outlet
2020-11-29	CPIS investigation at Vivocity Outlet
2020-12-13	Plaintiff requested details of changes to beverages
2020-12-24	Defendants responded to plaintiff's request
2020-12-30	Plaintiff made ex parte application seeking leave to apply for an order of committal
2021-01-29	Vivocity Initial Lease terminated and replaced
2021-02-20	Second Beyond Coffee store opened at Bukit Batok
2021-03-17	Leave granted to plaintiff to apply for order of committal
2021-03-26	Plaintiff filed SUM 1432 for order of committal
2021-04-13	Tan's Reply Affidavit filed
2021-04-20	Plaintiff filed SUM 1821 to cross-examine Tan
2021-04-23	SUM 1821 and SUM 1432 allowed; fine imposed
2021-05-10	Deadline for payment of fine

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants had intentionally disobeyed the Orders by using the plaintiff’s recipes, albeit with minor changes, in respect of a few beverages in the Outlets and thus committed contempt of court.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Intentional disobedience of court order
  - Breach of injunction
Use of Confidential Information
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants continued to use the plaintiff's confidential recipes despite the Orders.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Order of Committal
Fine
Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court
Breach of Confidence
Passing Off

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Injunctions
Intellectual Property

11. Industries

Food and Beverage

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1971] 2 QB 67	England and Wales	Cited regarding the suitability of cross-examination in civil contempt proceedings and the judge's discretion in allowing it.
BTS Tankers Pte Ltd v Energy & Commodity Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 58	Singapore	Cited for the purpose of committal proceedings and the element of intention in contempt of court.
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the purpose of committal proceedings as a remedy of last resort, the element of intention in contempt of court, and factors to consider in determining the appropriate sentence.
Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon Aik	High Court	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 870	Singapore	Cited regarding the irrelevance of motive in determining liability for contempt of court.
PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 828	Singapore	Cited regarding the irrelevance of motive in determining liability for contempt of court.
Tay Yun Chwan Henry v Chan Siew Lee Jannie	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 181	Singapore	Cited regarding the irrelevance of motive in determining liability for contempt of court.
VDZ v VEA	High Court	Yes	[2020] 4 SLR 921	Singapore	Cited regarding the irrelevance of motive in determining liability for contempt of court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore
Rules of Court	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Confidential Information
Recipes
Injunction
Contempt of Court
Mixologist
Master Franchise Agreement
Beyond Coffee
After Coffee

15.2 Keywords

contempt
injunction
recipes
confidential information
food and beverage
singapore
court order

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	90
Breach of Confidence	75
Civil Procedure	60
Evidence	50
Contract Law	30

16. Subjects

Contempt of Court
Injunctions
Intellectual Property
Civil Procedure