Tritech v Duan Wei: Breach of Confidence, Misrepresentation, and Negligence Claims

In Tritech Water Technologies Pte Ltd and others v Duan Wei and another [2023] SGHC 23, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a case brought by Tritech against two former employees, Duan Wei and Luo Zhuobiao, for breach of confidence, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The claims arose from the defendants' alleged misuse of Tritech's confidential information and misrepresentations regarding the suitability of equipment and vendors for Tritech's projects. The court found Dr. Duan liable for breach of his implied contractual duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the RO Production Line, and breach of his duty of good faith and fidelity. The court also found Dr. Duan and Mr. Luo in breach of their equitable and contractual duty of confidence and unlawful means conspiracy. The court ordered damages to be assessed and granted an injunction.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiffs in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Tritech sues ex-employees for breach of confidence, misrepresentation, and negligence. The court found liability for breach of duty and fraudulent misrepresentation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tritech Water Technologies Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
Tritech Environmental Group Co LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
Tritech Engineering & Testing (Singapore) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
Duan WeiDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost
Luo ZhuobiaoDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lin Weiqi WendyWongPartnership LLP
Leau Jun LiWongPartnership LLP
Leow JiaminWongPartnership LLP
Leong Keng KheongLeong Chua & Wong

4. Facts

  1. Tritech sued former employees, Dr. Duan and Mr. Luo, for breach of confidence and misrepresentation.
  2. Dr. Duan was employed by TWT and later became Chief Technical Officer.
  3. Mr. Luo was employed by TET and later became Chief Commercial Officer at TEG.
  4. Dr. Duan incorporated Dreamem before resigning from Tritech.
  5. Tritech conducted a trap purchase of Dreamem’s products.
  6. Mr. Luo was dismissed by Tritech for misconduct.
  7. Dr. Duan worked on unsuccessful projects during his employment.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tritech Water Technologies Pte Ltd and others v Duan Wei and another, Suit No 941 of 2018, [2023] SGHC 23

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Luo employed by TET as an engineer.
Dr. Duan employed by TWT as a Principal Engineer.
Dr. Duan signed non-disclosure agreement with TWT.
Mr. Luo's employment transferred from TET to TWT.
TEG signed a Film Manufacturing Equipment Design Commissioning Agreement with Shanghai Dahe.
TEG entered into a purchase agreement with Shanghai Dahe for the supply of the production line for the FO Project.
Dr. Duan conducted pre-delivery inspections of the assembled equipment at Shanghai Dahe’s premises.
Dr. Duan conducted pre-delivery inspections of the assembled equipment at Shanghai Dahe’s premises.
Delivery of the FO Production Line.
Tritech first launched hollow fibre membrane ultrafiltration products.
Dr. Duan set out a list of defects.
Dr. Duan arranged the purchase of membrane-rolling machines from Shanghai Dahe.
Tritech first launched column-style membrane.
Dr. Duan informed Dr. Wang that the machines were manufactured in accordance with Tritech’s design and were satisfactory.
Dr. Duan compiled a list of defects that were present in the MR Machines and sent it to Mr. Gong.
Dr. Wang asked Dr. Duan to inspect two potential vendors to assess their suitability, one of which was Zhejiang Shengshi.
Dr. Duan informed Mr. Gong that Zhejiang Shengshi had provided a quotation with technical documents for an RO production line.
TEG entered into an agreement with Zhejiang Shengshi for the supply and manufacture of an RO production line.
Mr. Gong told Shanghai Dahe that the MR Machines were “basically non-functional”.
Dr. Duan said that Tritech had solved the issues with the MR Machines themselves.
Dr. Duan inspected the RO Production Line prior to delivery alone at Zhejiang Shengshi’s factory.
TEG accepted delivery of the RO Production Line.
TEG accepted delivery of the RO Production Line.
The money was disbursed to Dr. Duan in two debit cards.
Dr. Duan sent formula to Tritech.
Annotated copy of the contract was prepared.
The contract with Shanghai Dahe was terminated.
Dr. Duan incorporated Dreamem.
Dr. Duan resigned as an employee of Tritech.
Mr. Luo forwarded documents containing pricing information for some products manufactured by Tritech, which bore the name “VaVie”, to his personal e-mail.
Dr. Duan left TWT’s employment.
Mr. Luo forwarded documents containing pricing information for RO membrane products to his personal e-mail.
Ms. Zhang sent Mr. Luo a .rar folder containing various documents relating to Tritech’s ultrafiltration operating procedures and RO membrane quality control at his request.
Mr. Luo forwarded this e-mail chain to his personal e-mail address.
Ms. Hou sent him a .rar folder containing documents relating to the quality, environmental and safety management system and the “VaVie” products.
Dr. Tan was informed by the lead of his production team that Mr. Luo had been at the UF Production Line a few times that month, observing the production process and taking detailed notes.
Mr. Xiao told Dr. Tan that Mr. Luo still came to the production line and asked the production team questions.
Dr. Tan reported Mr. Luo’s behaviour to Dr. Wang.
Mr. Luo forwarded to his personal e-mail documents relating to the hollow fibre manufacturing process.
Ms. Guo corresponded with Mr. Luo at the e-mail address “luozhuobiao@dreamem.cn”.
Ms. Guo purchased four curtain-style UF membranes and three column-style UF membranes from Dreamem.
Goods delivered to Mr. Gong and Dr. Tan at Tritech.
An evidence preservation order was granted.
The evidence preservation was conducted at Dreamem’s premises.
Mr. Luo was dismissed by Tritech.
Tritech commenced this suit.
TEG reported Dr Duan to the Chinese police.
Suit was bifurcated by consent at a pre-trial conference.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Confidence
    • Outcome: The court found that Dr. Duan and Mr. Luo were in breach of their equitable and contractual duty of confidence to Tritech.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that Dr. Duan fraudulently misrepresented that Zhejiang Shengshi was capable of producing a suitable production line and that the RO Production Line was acceptable.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Negligent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court did not find Dr. Duan liable for negligent misrepresentation.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Dr. Duan was in breach of his implied contractual duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in the performance of his duties.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fidelity
    • Outcome: The court found that Dr. Duan was in breach of his duty of good faith and fidelity in relation to the RMB400,000 that he was given by Dr. Wang.
    • Category: Substantive
  6. Unlawful Means Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court found that the claim in unlawful means conspiracy succeeds against Dr. Duan and Mr. Luo.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Injunction
  3. Account of Profits
  4. Delivery up of documents

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Confidence
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Negligent Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Unlawful Means Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Breach of Contract
  • Torts
  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Employment Disputes

11. Industries

  • Engineering
  • Water Technology
  • Environmental Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 435SingaporeCited for the requirements for a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation.
Derry v PeekN/AYes(1889) 14 App Cas 337N/ACited for the requirements for a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation.
Yong Khong Yoong Mark and others v Ting Choon Meng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 246SingaporeCited for the requirements for a claim in negligent misrepresentation.
Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F Man International (S) Pte Ltd) v Wong Bark Chuan DavidCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 663SingaporeCited for the implied term in an employment contract that the employee will use reasonable skill and care in the performance of his or her duties.
Goldrich Venture Pte Ltd and another v Halcyon Offshore Pte LtdN/AYes[2015] 3 SLR 990SingaporeCited for the principle that statements of opinion are not actionable.
Smith v Land and House Property CorporationN/AYes(1884) 24 ChD 7N/ACited for the principle that statements of opinion can involve implied statements of fact.
Bestland Development Pte Ltd v Thasin Development Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1991] SGHC 27SingaporeCited for the principle that statements of opinion can involve implied statements of fact.
Bisset v Wilkinson and anotherN/AYes[1927] 1 AC 177N/ACited for the principle that whether or not the maker of the statement genuinely held the opinion at the time of expressing it is also a matter of fact.
Robb v GreenN/AYes[1895] 2 QB 315N/ACited for the appropriate question is whether such conduct was not what any person of ordinary honesty would look upon as dishonest conduct towards his employer and a dereliction from the duty which the defendant owed to his employer to act towards him with good faith.
Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew StewartN/AYes[2012] 4 SLR 308SingaporeCited for the appropriate question is whether such conduct was not what any person of ordinary honesty would look upon as dishonest conduct towards his employer and a dereliction from the duty which the defendant owed to his employer to act towards him with good faith.
I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and othersN/AYes[2020] 1 SLR 1130SingaporeCited for the three elements of a claim in breach of confidence in equity.
Invenpro (M) Sdn Bhd v JCS Automation Pte Ltd and anotherN/AYes[2014] 2 SLR 1045SingaporeCited for the principle that information possesses the necessary quality of confidence so long as it remains relatively secret or relatively inaccessible to the public as compared to information already in the public domain.
Adinop Co Ltd v Rovithai Ltd and anotherN/AYes[2019] 2 SLR 808SingaporeCited for the general test of whether a reasonable person in the shoes of the recipient of the information would have known on reasonable grounds that the information was confidential and given to him in confidence.
Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town CorpN/AYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 909SingaporeCited for the principle that for a representation to have been made fraudulently, it must have been made knowingly, without belief in its truth or recklessly.
Wong Tian Jun De Beers v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2022] 4 SLR 805SingaporeCited for the principle that expert witnesses owe a duty to the court to ensure the reliability and usefulness of their report.
Public Prosecutor v Chia Kee Chen and another appealN/AYes[2018] 2 SLR 249SingaporeCited for the principle that it is critical for an expert to provide the reasoning behind his or her conclusions; the mere stating of conclusions will be of little utility to the court.
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and anotherN/AYes[2014] 1 SLR 860SingaporeCited for the requirements for a conspiracy by unlawful means to arise.
Clearlab SG Pte Ltd v Ting Chong Chai and othersN/AYes[2015] 1 SLR 163SingaporeCited for the principle that breach of confidence could form the requisite unlawful means for establishing unlawful means conspiracy.
Chew Kong Huat and others v Ricwil (Singapore) Pte LtdN/AYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 1167SingaporeCited for the principle that damage to the plaintiff was a necessary corollary of the profit accruing to the defendant, a direct competitor.
Piattchanine, Iouri v Phosagro Asia Pte LtdN/AYes[2015] 5 SLR 1257SingaporeCited for the principle that Dr. Duan is liable to return this sum.
Enjin Pte Ltd v Pritchard, LiliaHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 201SingaporeCited for the principle that Dr. Duan is liable to return this sum.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 40A r 3 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Confidential Information
  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract
  • FO Production Line
  • RO Production Line
  • Ultrafiltration
  • Membranes
  • Dreamem
  • Trap Purchase
  • Fiduciary Duty

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of confidence
  • misrepresentation
  • negligence
  • employment
  • Tritech
  • Duan Wei
  • Luo Zhuobiao
  • engineering
  • water technology
  • environmental technology

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Confidence90
Misrepresentation85
Fraud and Deceit80
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means75
Negligence70
Fiduciary Duties60
Contract Law50
Damages Assessment45
Inducement of Breach of Contract40
Business Litigation35
Causation30
Business Law25
Duty to Account20

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Employment Law
  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Confidence