Asia Petworld v Sivabalan: Breach of Confidence & Conspiracy in Pet Supply Industry

Asia Petworld Pte Ltd sued Sivabalan s/o Ramasami and Global Pet Company Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of confidence and conspiracy to injure. Asia Petworld claimed that Sivabalan, a former employee, misused confidential information regarding its supply chain and pricing to benefit Global Pet, leading to a loss of profits. The court, presided over by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, dismissed Asia Petworld's claim, finding that the information in question did not possess the necessary quality of confidence and that there was no evidence of misuse or conspiracy.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claim Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Asia Petworld sues Sivabalan and Global Pet for breach of confidence and conspiracy. The court dismissed the claim, finding no misuse of confidential information.

1.7 Decision Date

25 May 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Asia Petworld Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Nandwani Manoj Prakash of Gabriel Law Corporation Quah Chun En Joel of Gabriel Law Corporation
Sivabalan s/o Ramasami	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Won	Narayanan Vijya Kumar of Vijay & Co
Global Pet Company Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won	Narayanan Vijya Kumar of Vijay & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Philip Jeyaretnam	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Nandwani Manoj Prakash	Gabriel Law Corporation
Quah Chun En Joel	Gabriel Law Corporation
Narayanan Vijya Kumar	Vijay & Co

4. Facts

Plaintiff is a Singapore-based drop shipper of pet products.
First defendant was employed by the plaintiff as a warehouse manager from January 2015 to February 2021.
Second defendant is a Singapore company providing wholesale supplies to Sierra Nevada Pet Company (SNPC).
First defendant and Mr. John Robert Foley are each 50% shareholders and directors of the second defendant.
SNPC stopped using the plaintiff’s services from April 2021 onwards.
Plaintiff alleged the first defendant misused confidential information about suppliers, costs, and fulfillment fees.
The first defendant resigned from the plaintiff on 1 February 2021 and began working for the second defendant on 1 March 2021.

5. Formal Citations

Asia Petworld Pte Ltd v Sivabalan s/o Ramasami and another, Suit No 258 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 128

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-08-07	First defendant signed a contract of employment with Singpet Pte Ltd.
2014-04-03	Plaintiff was incorporated.
2015-01-01	First defendant began working for the plaintiff.
2021-02-01	First defendant e-mailed his letter of resignation to Ms Marhalim.
2021-02-16	Second defendant was incorporated.
2021-03-01	First defendant began working for the second defendant.
2021-03-15	Plaintiff applied to the High Court for an interim injunction against the defendants.
2021-06-16	Interim injunction was granted.
2022-03-01	Oral hearing took place.
2022-03-04	Oral hearing took place.
2022-05-26	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court held that the information did not possess the necessary quality of confidence and there was no misuse.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2020] 1 SLR 1130
  - [2022] SGCA 29
  - [1939] 1 All ER 290
  - [2019] 2 SLR 808
  - [1993] 1 SLR(R) 835
  - [1986] 1 All ER 617
  - [2003] 4 SLR(R) 658
  - [1909] 1 Ch 763
Conspiracy to Injure
- Outcome: The court found no conspiracy to injure, as there was no predominant purpose to injure the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1996] 3 SLR(R) 637
Duty of Good Faith and Fidelity
- Outcome: The court found no breach of the duty of good faith and fidelity.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2012] 4 SLR 308

8. Remedies Sought

Damages
Account of Profits
Interim Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Confidence
Conspiracy to Injure

10. Practice Areas

Intellectual Property Litigation
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Pet Industry
E-commerce

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and others	High Court	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 1130	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that the burden is on the defendants to prove that they did not misuse the information once the plaintiff establishes that the information bears the quality of confidence.
Lim Oon Kuin and others v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] SGCA 29	Singapore	Clarified that the modified approach outlined in I-Admin was limited to cases of unauthorised acquisition.
E Worsley & Co Ltd v Cooper	Unknown	Yes	[1939] 1 All ER 290	England	Concerning an ex-employee’s use of his knowledge of suppliers obtained in his previous employ.
Adinop Co Ltd v Rovithai Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 808	Singapore	Explained the interplay between an express contractual duty of confidentiality and obligations of confidentiality in equity.
Tang Siew Choy and others v Certact Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR(R) 835	Singapore	Cited remarks from Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler regarding the scope of an employee's obligation not to use or disclose information after the determination of employment.
Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler	Unknown	Yes	[1986] 1 All ER 617	England	Remarks regarding the scope of an employee's obligation not to use or disclose information after the determination of employment.
Asia Business Forum Pte Ltd v Long Ai Sin and another	Unknown	Yes	[2003] 4 SLR(R) 658	Singapore	The knowledge and experience that an employee acquires during his employment is not protectable confidential information.
Sir W C Leng & Co Limited v Andrews	Unknown	Yes	[1909] 1 Ch 763	England	An employer cannot prevent his employee from using the skill and knowledge in his trade or profession which he has learnt in the course of his employment by means of directions or instructions from the employer.
Quah Kay Tee v Ong and Co Pte Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR(R) 637	Singapore	One necessary element is the predominant purpose to injure the plaintiff.
Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew Stewart	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 308	Singapore	Taking preparatory steps to compete with a former employer will not constitute a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fidelity on the part of the employee concerned.
Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 407	Singapore	An injunctee must show in order to obtain an order for an inquiry as to damages, namely an arguable case that it had in fact sustained loss falling within the terms of the plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Employment Act (Cap 91, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Companies Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Drop shipping
Confidential information
Breach of confidence
Conspiracy to injure
True cost
Landed cost
Fulfilment fee
Supply chain
Good faith
Fidelity

15.2 Keywords

Breach of confidence
Conspiracy
Pet products
Drop shipping
Singapore
Employment
Confidential information

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Breach of Confidence	90
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	60
Torts	50
Pre-incorporation acts	40
Contract Law	30
Employment Law	20
Fiduciary Duty	20
Corporate Law	20
Intellectual Property Law	10
Company Law	10

16. Subjects

Intellectual Property
Tort Law
Employment Law
Confidentiality
Conspiracy