Pacific Prime v Lee Suet Fern: Injunction Variation for Misuse of Confidential Information

Pacific Prime Insurance Brokers Singapore Pte Ltd and CXA Insurance Brokers Singapore Pte Ltd sued Lee Suet Fern, Ng Lee Teng Nellie, Afeli Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd, and Afeli Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Suit No 825 of 2021, regarding the alleged misuse of confidential information and solicitation of clients. The plaintiffs sought injunctions against the defendants. The defendants applied to discharge and/or vary the injunction orders. Choo Han Teck J partially allowed the defendants' application, limiting the duration of the non-solicitation injunction to six months and varying the scope of the confidentiality injunctions.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Defendants' application to discharge the non-solicitation injunctions and the confidentiality injunctions dismissed. Defendants allowed to vary the duration and scope of the injunctions.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Injunction variation case concerning misuse of confidential client revenue data. The court partially allowed the variation, limiting the duration of non-solicitation injunctions.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Pacific Prime Insurance Brokers Singapore Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication to discharge injunction dismissedLost
CXA Insurance Brokers Singapore Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication to discharge injunction dismissedLost
Lee Suet FernDefendantIndividualApplication to discharge injunction partially allowedPartial
Ng Lee Teng, NellieDefendantIndividualApplication to discharge injunction partially allowedPartial
Afeli Insurance Brokers Pte LtdDefendantCorporationApplication to discharge injunction partially allowedPartial
Afeli Pte LtdDefendantCorporationApplication to discharge injunction partially allowedPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Prakash PillaiCLASIS LLC
Koh JunxiangCLASIS LLC
Yap Zhan MingCLASIS LLC
Charis Toh Si YingCLASIS LLC
Gregory Vijayendran GanesamoorthyRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Tomoyuki Lewis BanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Lester Chua Kee TianRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Zeng HanyiFocus Law Asia LLC
Lim Ker SheonFocus Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

  1. PPIBS is a registered insurance broker specializing in health and medical insurance.
  2. CXAIBS is a registered insurance broker in the business of insurance-tech and insurance brokerage.
  3. PPIBS acquired CXAIBS in February 2021 to acquire a perpetual license to CXA1 software.
  4. Lee Suet Fern and Ng Lee Teng Nellie were senior-executive-level employees of CXAIBS.
  5. Lee Suet Fern and Ng Lee Teng Nellie resigned in April 2021.
  6. Afeli Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd and Afeli Pte Ltd were founded by Lee Suet Fern and Ng Lee Teng Nellie after their resignation.
  7. Plaintiffs claimed the defendants poached employees and clients after resignation.
  8. KPMG Report showed the defendants deleted documents on the day of their resignation.
  9. Baxter moved their business to the Afeli entities because they were able to offer “a substantially lower cost structure”.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Pacific Prime Insurance Brokers Singapore Pte Ltd v Lee Suet Fern, Suit No 825 of 2021(Summonses Nos 5235 and 5238 of 2021), [2022] SGHC 86

6. Timeline

DateEvent
PPIBS acquired CXAIBS
Jez and Nellie employment transferred to PPIBS
Jez and Nellie tendered resignation
Last day of employment for Jez and Nellie
Afeli Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd incorporated
Afeli Pte Ltd incorporated
Phone call with Seagate
Email from Baxter
Plaintiffs made ex parte application for injunction order
Hearing date
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misuse of Confidential Information
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendants might have misused the plaintiffs’ client revenue data to undercut the plaintiffs’ prices.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unfair competitive advantage
      • Breach of confidentiality obligations
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] SGHC 281
      • [2017] 3 SLR 657
  2. Springboard Injunction
    • Outcome: The court determined that the non-solicitation injunctions sought were springboard injunctions and granted them for a limited duration.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Removal of unfair competitive advantage
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] SGHC 281
      • [2017] 3 SLR 657
      • [2015] 5 SLR 258
  3. Material Non-Disclosure
    • Outcome: The court found that although there may have been matters which the plaintiffs omitted to disclose, they were not material non-disclosures that were sufficient to discharge the injunction orders.
    • Category: Procedural
  4. Restraint of Trade
    • Outcome: The court held that the reasonableness and validity of the non-solicitation clause should not be assessed at the interlocutory stage.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonableness of non-solicitation clause
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] SGHC 361

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunctions
  2. Confidentiality injunctions
  3. Non-solicitation injunctions

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Confidence
  • Solicitation of Clients

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Injunctions

11. Industries

  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
BAFCO Singapore Pte Ltd v Lee Tze SengHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 281SingaporeCited for the definition of a springboard injunction and its purpose.
Goh Seng Heng v RSP InvestmentsHigh CourtYes[2017] 3 SLR 657SingaporeCited for the requirements to be met for a springboard injunction.
Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pte Ltd v Howden Insurance Brokers (S) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 258SingaporeCited for the principle that a springboard injunction is not meant to be maintained indefinitely.
Littau Robin Duane v Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 361SingaporeCited for the principle that the reasonableness and validity of a non-solicitation clause should not be assessed at the interlocutory stage.

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

  • Injunction
  • Confidential Information
  • Non-Solicitation
  • Springboard Injunction
  • Material Non-Disclosure
  • Client Revenue Data
  • Unfair Competitive Advantage
  • CXA1
  • KPMG Report

15.2 Keywords

  • Injunction
  • Confidential Information
  • Insurance
  • Singapore
  • Commercial Litigation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Injunctions85
Civil Practice75
Breach of Confidence70
Duty of Candour60
Contract Law60
Non-disclosure50
Commercial Disputes50
Estoppel40
Evidence40
Misrepresentation30
Company Law30
Breach of Contractual Terms30
Costs20

16. Subjects

  • Injunctions
  • Confidentiality
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Civil Procedure