Macs Associates v. Siew Kang Yoke: Setting Aside Anton Piller Order for Breach of Confidence

In Macs Associates Pte Ltd v Siew Kang Yoke, the High Court of Singapore considered the defendants' application to set aside an Anton Piller order (APO) obtained by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, Macs Associates Pte Ltd, H. Wee & Co LLP, and H. Wee Management Consultants Pte Ltd, alleged that the defendants, Siew Kang Yoke and Lee Soon Weng, former employees, misused confidential information to benefit their competing business, SKY Management Associates (SMA). The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, set aside the APO, finding that the plaintiffs did not establish a strong prima facie case of a causal link between the alleged misuse of confidential information and the loss of clients. The court also noted that the APO's scope was too wide and that the plaintiffs could rely on ordinary discovery procedures.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Anton Piller Order set aside.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court set aside an Anton Piller order, finding no strong prima facie case of a causal link between the misuse of confidential information and client loss.

1.7 Decision Date

12 September 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Macs Associates Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Anton Piller Order set aside	Lost	Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie Tan Teng Muan of Mallal & Namazie Loh Li Qin of Mallal & Namazie
H. Wee & Co LLP	Plaintiff	Limited Liability Partnership	Anton Piller Order set aside	Lost	Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie Tan Teng Muan of Mallal & Namazie Loh Li Qin of Mallal & Namazie
H. Wee Management Consultants Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Anton Piller Order set aside	Lost	Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie Tan Teng Muan of Mallal & Namazie Loh Li Qin of Mallal & Namazie
Siew Kang Yoke (trading as Sky Management Associates)	Defendant	Individual	Application to set aside Anton Piller Order allowed	Won	Deborah Barker of Withers KhattarWong LLP Amarjit Kaur of Withers KhattarWong LLP Jayna Tan Yi Hui of Withers KhattarWong LLP
Lee Soon Weng	Defendant	Individual	Application to set aside Anton Piller Order allowed	Won	Deborah Barker of Withers KhattarWong LLP Amarjit Kaur of Withers KhattarWong LLP Jayna Tan Yi Hui of Withers KhattarWong LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Choo Han Teck	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chua Boon Beng	Mallal & Namazie
Tan Teng Muan	Mallal & Namazie
Loh Li Qin	Mallal & Namazie
Deborah Barker	Withers KhattarWong LLP
Amarjit Kaur	Withers KhattarWong LLP
Jayna Tan Yi Hui	Withers KhattarWong LLP

4. Facts

The plaintiffs provide tax consultancy, auditing, and corporate secretarial services.
The first defendant was a Tax Manager until December 31, 2020.
The second defendant was a tax manager until December 29, 2020.
The defendants set up SKY Management Associates (SMA) on February 1, 2021.
The plaintiffs claimed the defendants took confidential information to benefit SMA.
The plaintiffs obtained an Anton Piller order on May 11, 2021.
The APO was executed on May 18, 2021.

5. Formal Citations

Macs Associates Pte Ltd and others v Siew Kang Yoke (trading as Sky Management Associates) and another, Suit No 424 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 210

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1983-01-01	First defendant employed by the first plaintiff.
2020-12-29	Second defendant ceased employment with the first plaintiff.
2020-12-31	First defendant ceased employment with the first plaintiff.
2021-02-01	First and second defendants set up SKY Management Associates.
2021-05-11	Plaintiffs obtained an Anton Piller order.
2021-05-18	Anton Piller order executed.
2021-05-19	Electronic devices returned to the defendants.
2021-08-20	Judgment reserved.
2021-09-13	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court found a strong prima facie case that the documents were clothed with the necessary quality of confidence and were imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Misuse of confidential information
  - Obligation of confidence
Conversion
- Outcome: The court found a strong prima facie case that the confidential information is the property of the first plaintiff, and the defendants’ deletion of such information would constitute a “positive wrongful act”.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Wrongful act of dealing with goods
  - Denial of owner's rights
Breach of Fidelity
- Outcome: The court found that the affidavit evidence does not support a strong prima facie case that the defendants had solicited the clients of the plaintiffs.
- Category: Substantive
Anton Piller Order - Setting Aside
- Outcome: The court set aside the Anton Piller Order, finding that the plaintiffs did not establish a strong prima facie case and that the order was disproportionate.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Procedural breaches
  - Material non-disclosure
  - Proportionality

8. Remedies Sought

Return of seized items
Destruction of duplicates
Setting aside of Anton Piller order

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Confidence
Breach of Contract
Breach of Duty of Fidelity
Conversion
Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Tax Consultancy
Auditing
Corporate Secretarial Services

11. Industries

Accounting
Consulting

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch)	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 901	Singapore	Cited for the four conditions that must be satisfied to obtain a search order.
Expanded Metal Manufacturing Pte Ltd v Expanded Metal Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 57	Singapore	Cited for the principle that to set aside an Anton Piller order, the defendants need to show that there were breaches in the execution of the APO that had caused prejudice to them.
Bengawan Solo Pte Ltd v Season Confectionery Co (Pte) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1994] 1 SLR(R) 448	Singapore	Cited for the principle that to set aside an Anton Piller order, the defendants must show that the plaintiffs did not meet any of the conditions needed to obtain a search order, or that the plaintiff did not make full and frank disclosure in the ex parte application.
I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and others	High Court	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 1130	Singapore	Cited for the requirements to establish a breach of confidentiality in equity.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Yee Heng Khay (alias Roger)	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 168	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the defendants must produce evidence to show that that there was no misuse or abuse of the confidential information.
Petromar Energy Resources Pte Ltd v Glencore International AG	High Court	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1152	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there must be solid evidence of a real risk that the defendants would destroy or remove documents if not for the 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

Anton Piller order
Confidential information
Breach of confidence
Breach of fidelity
Conversion
Prima facie case
Material non-disclosure
SKY Management Associates
Tax consultancy services

15.2 Keywords

Anton Piller order
breach of confidence
confidential information
tax consultancy
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Anton Piller Order	85
Civil Practice	75
Breach of Confidence	70
Injunctions	65
Contract Law	60
Evidence Law	55
Fiduciary Duties	50
Procedural Breaches	45
Commercial Disputes	40
Company Law	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Breach of Confidence
Anton Piller Order