Yee Heng Khay v Angliss Singapore: Breach of Confidence, Loyalty, and Fidelity Dispute
In a civil appeal before the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore, Yee Heng Khay appealed against the trial judge's decision that he had breached his duty of confidence in equity and in contract, and his contractual duties of loyalty and fidelity to Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd, causing them to lose a distributorship agreement. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice to justify a retrial and allowed Angliss' application to adduce further evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning Yee Heng Khay's breach of confidence, loyalty, and fidelity, resulting in Angliss Singapore's loss of a distributorship agreement. Appeal dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yee Heng Khay (alias Roger) | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Yee was a former employee of Angliss, a food distributor.
- Angliss contended that Yee copied and shared restricted files without authorization.
- Arla bypassed Angliss and entered into a distributorship agreement with Indoguna, where Yee was employed.
- Angliss sued Yee for breach of confidence, contractual duties, loyalty, and fiduciary duties.
- The trial judge found Yee liable for breach of confidence, contractual duties of confidence, loyalty and fidelity.
- Yee appealed, arguing the judgment was obtained by fraud due to concealed evidence and perjury.
- Yee sought to adduce further evidence from Arla to show the relationship between Arla and Angliss was not robust.
5. Formal Citations
- Yee Heng Khay (alias Roger) v Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 82 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 20
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 284 of 2018 filed by Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd against Yee Heng Khay | |
| Trial occurred in February 2021 | |
| Yee filed SUM 19 to adduce further evidence | |
| SUM 19 was allowed | |
| Yee filed his Appellant’s Case | |
| Angliss filed SUM 4 to adduce further evidence on appeal | |
| Angliss filed its Respondent’s Case | |
| Hearing Date | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court upheld the trial judge's finding that Yee had breached his duty of confidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Contractual Duties
- Outcome: The court upheld the trial judge's finding that Yee had breached his contractual duties of confidence, loyalty, and fidelity.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Further Evidence on Appeal
- Outcome: The court allowed Angliss' application to adduce further evidence on appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Outcome: The court found no miscarriage of justice that justified a retrial.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for loss of profits
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Confidence
- Breach of Contractual Duties of Confidence
- Breach of Duty of Loyalty and Fidelity
- Breach of Fiduciary Duties
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Food Distribution
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Yee Heng Khay (alias Roger) | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 168 | Singapore | The trial judge found that Yee had breached his duty of confidence in equity and in contract, and his contractual duties of loyalty and fidelity. |
| Ladd v Marshall | English High Court | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England | Cited for the three cumulative requirements to adduce further evidence on appeal. |
| Bioconstruct GmbH v Winspear and another | English High Court | Yes | [2020] EWHC 2390 (QB) | England | Cited for the principle that the Ladd v Marshall criteria are not applicable in relation to further evidence in response to a new claim. |
| AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Ladd v Marshall criteria apply to preserve finality and ensure fairness. |
| AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1158 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where leave to adduce further evidence is granted, typically, a consequential order would be for the respondent to file affidavits in reply. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1256 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where leave to adduce further evidence is granted, typically, a consequential order would be for the respondent to file affidavits in reply. |
| Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 31 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court’s jurisdiction must be established before that court can consider what powers it possesses and may exercise. |
| Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 110 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 43(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 gives the Appellate Division the power to order a new trial in exercise of its civil jurisdiction. |
| Susilawati v American Express Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 737 | Singapore | Cited for guidance on the scope of ordering a new trial. |
| Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party seeking to set aside a judgment by adducing fresh evidence to show that the earlier court was fraudulently deceived can either appeal and seek on appeal to adduce the fresh evidence, or bring a fresh action in which the relief sought is the setting aside of the judgment fraudulently obtained; also cited for the preferred practice of bringing a fresh action to set aside the judgment on the basis of fraud. |
| BNX v BOE and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 215 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the threshold for establishing fraud, which is rooted in dishonesty, is a high one. |
| Ching Chew Weng Paul, deceased, and others v Ching Pui Sim and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 869 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that inadvertent errors in the evidence, the drawing of wrong inferences, conjectures, lack of corroborative evidence or incorrect evidence short of actual and deliberate fraud would not be sufficient to discharge the burden of proof. |
| Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and others | House of Lords | Yes | [2020] AC 450 | England | Cited in line with commonwealth jurisdictions such as England, Australia and Malaysia regarding the preferred practice for fraud claims. |
| Dale v Banga and others | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2021] EWCA Civ 240 | England | Cited in line with commonwealth jurisdictions such as England, Australia and Malaysia regarding the preferred practice for fraud claims. |
| Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd (in Liq) | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2018] HCA 12 | Australia | Cited in line with commonwealth jurisdictions such as England, Australia and Malaysia regarding the preferred practice for fraud claims. |
| K Ramalingam v Mohammad Razin | Federal Court of Malaysia | Yes | [2017] 3 MLJ 103 | Malaysia | Cited in line with commonwealth jurisdictions such as England, Australia and Malaysia regarding the preferred practice for fraud claims. |
| Seruan Gemilang Makmun Sdn Bhd v Kerjaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmun | Federal Court of Malaysia | Yes | [2016] 3 MLJ 1 | Malaysia | Cited in line with commonwealth jurisdictions such as England, Australia and Malaysia regarding the preferred practice for fraud claims. |
| Noble v Owens | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2010] 3 All ER 830 | England | Cited for the approach that a new action for fraud is not always necessary and directions for the issue of fraud to be determined first are made within the appeal proceedings. |
| Mary Mavris v Maria Xylia, Marina Xylia | England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) | Yes | [2017] EWHC 2949 (Ch) | England | Cited for elaborating on the Noble-Owens order. |
| Jason William Gann v Joseph Hosny | Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] VSCA 43 | Australia | Cited for the course taken following the approach of the English Court of Appeal in Noble v Owens. |
| Li Shengwu v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1081 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it would be at odds with the exercise of appellate jurisdiction to be in the position of a court of first instance. |
| Sunbreeze Group Investments Ltd and others v Sim Chye Hock Ron | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1242 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it would be at odds with the exercise of appellate jurisdiction to be in the position of a court of first instance. |
| Ku Chiu Chung Woody v Tang Tin Sung | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] HKEC 727 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal will not order a retrial unless some substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has taken place. |
| Chia Bak Eng v Punggol Bus Service Co | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1965–1967] SLR(R) 270 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a new trial would ordinarily be ordered only where the improperly rejected evidence would, if admitted, have a substantial and realistic prospect of making a meaningful difference to the outcome of the case, and the appellate court is in no position to evaluate the improperly rejected evidence itself. |
| Floorweald Ltd v Francesca Elu | High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division | Yes | N/A | England | Noble-Owens orders have been made in both Australia and England |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Duty of confidence
- Duty of loyalty
- Fidelity
- Distributorship agreement
- Fraud
- Perjury
- Miscarriage of justice
- Further evidence
- Retrial
15.2 Keywords
- Breach of confidence
- Breach of loyalty
- Fidelity
- Distributorship
- Appeal
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Appellate Practice | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Breach of Confidence | 60 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 50 |
| Breach of Contract | 50 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 40 |
| Evidence | 40 |
| Jurisdiction | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Appeals