Swift Maids v Cheong: Contract Breach, Employee Duties, Fiduciary Duty

Swift Maids Pte Ltd and Swift Maids Resources Pte Ltd sued Cheong Yi Qiang, Recruitbee Employment Pte Ltd, Toh Suling, Stephenie, Thin Thin Aung, and Recruitbee Helpers Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, breach of fiduciary duties, dishonest assistance, and unlawful means conspiracy. The plaintiffs claimed that Cheong, while employed as a general manager at Swift Maids, was involved in setting up a competing business, Recruitbee, and diverted business and employees from Swift Maids. The court, presided over by Teh Hwee Hwee J, found Cheong liable for breach of contract but dismissed all other claims. The plaintiffs were awarded nominal damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part; nominal damages awarded for breach of contract.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Swift Maids sued Cheong for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and conspiracy. Court found Cheong liable for contract breach.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Swift Maids Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
Swift Maids Resources Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Cheong Yi QiangDefendantIndividualJudgment against Defendant in partLost
Recruitbee Employment Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Toh Suling, StephenieDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedDismissed
Thin Thin AungDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedDismissed
Recruitbee Helpers Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Teh Hwee HweeJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Noel John Geno-OehlersCharacterist LLC
Chua Su AnnCharacterist LLC
Wong JiehCircular Law Chambers LLP

4. Facts

  1. Swift Maids and Swift Maids Resources are foreign domestic worker employment agencies.
  2. Cheong Yi Qiang was employed as a general manager at Swift Maids Pte Ltd.
  3. Recruitbee Employment and Recruitbee Helpers are in the same line of business as Swift Maids.
  4. Toh Suling, Stephenie was a customer of Swift Maids and a freelance designer.
  5. Thin Thin Aung is a Burmese national and former employee of Swift Maids.
  6. Cheong and Toh were registered directors and shareholders of Recruitbee at various times.
  7. Aung claims to have been a director and shareholder of Recruitbee, though not registered.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Swift Maids Pte Ltd and another v Cheong Yi Qiang and others, Suit No 238 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 317

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Ms. Aung started working for Swift Maids Pte Ltd and HR Oceanic Pte Ltd.
Ms. Aung transferred to work for only Swift Maids Pte Ltd.
Mr. Cheong joined Swift Maids.
Company handphones and SIM cards arrived at Swift Maids.
Ms. Toh used Swift Maids' services to hire an FDW.
Recruitbee Employment incorporated.
Mr. Cheong tendered his resignation from Swift Maids.
Mr. Cheong's last day of service with Swift Maids.
Recruitbee Helpers incorporated.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Cheong was in breach of various obligations under his employment contract.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Breach of Confidence
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim against Mr. Cheong for breach of confidence.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim against Mr. Cheong for breach of fiduciary duties.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Unlawful Means Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants that is based on the tort of unlawful means conspiracy.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Dishonest Assistance
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim against the second to fifth defendants for dishonest assistance.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Account of Profits
  3. Equitable Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Confidence
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Dishonest Assistance
  • Unlawful Means Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Employment
  • Recruitment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029SingaporeCited for the principle that contractual terms must be interpreted in their internal context.
MCH International Pte Ltd and others v YG Group Pte Ltd and others and other appealsUnknownYes[2019] 2 SLR 837SingaporeCited for the principle that contractual terms must always be interpreted in their internal context.
Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F Man International (S) Pte Ltd) v Wong Bark Chuan DavidUnknownYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 663SingaporeCited for the principle that employees are bound by an implied term to serve the employer with good faith and fidelity.
Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew StewartCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 308SingaporeCited for the principle that an employee breaches the implied duty of good faith and fidelity when engaging in actual competitive activity.
I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and othersCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 1130SingaporeCited for the applicable test in situations where a plaintiff’s interest to avoid wrongful loss is engaged in breach of confidence claims.
Lim Oon Kuin and others v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2022] 2 SLR 280SingaporeCited for elaborating upon the situations in which the I-Admin approach would be applicable in breach of confidence claims.
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) LtdUnknownYes[1969] RPC 41England and WalesCited for the traditional approach in breach of confidence claims where the wrongful gain interest is at stake.
Shanghai Afute Food and Beverage Management Co Ltd v Tan Swee Meng and othersHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 34SingaporeCited for synthesising the comments of the Court of Appeal in I-Admin and Lim Oon Kuin on the bifurcated approach to establish an action for the breach of the equitable obligation of confidence.
Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another v Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and othersHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 241SingaporeCited for clarifying that a plaintiff is entitled to plead and claim on the basis of both the wrongful gain interest and the wrongful loss interest in an action for breach of confidence.
Writers Studio Pte Ltd v Chin Kwok YungHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 205SingaporeCited for the principle that counsel should take care to plead with specificity, whether they are proceeding on the basis of the ‘wrongful loss’ or ‘wrongful gain’ interest.
Adinop Co Ltd v Rovithai Ltd and anotherUnknownYes[2019] 2 SLR 808SingaporeCited for the principle that the action against Mr Cheong for breach of his duty of confidence in equity and their action against Mr Cheong for breach of his contractual duty of confidentiality are distinct causes of action and should not be conflated.
Asia Petworld Pte Ltd v Sivabalan s/o Ramasami and anotherUnknownYes[2022] 5 SLR 805SingaporeCited for the principle that the relationship of employer and employee, which entails good faith, loyalty and fidelity, establishes the circumstances required by this element.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Yee Heng Khay (alias Roger)High CourtYes[2021] SGHC 168SingaporeCited for the principle that whether the plaintiffs’ information possesses the necessary quality of confidence is dependent on whether it would be just in the circumstances to require the party against whom a duty of confidentiality is alleged to treat the information as confidential.
Wee Shuo Woon v HT SRLUnknownYes[2017] 2 SLR 94SingaporeCited for the principle that whether the plaintiffs’ information possesses the necessary quality of confidence is dependent on whether it would be just in the circumstances to require the party against whom a duty of confidentiality is alleged to treat the information as confidential.
Invenpro (M) Sdn Bhd v JCS Automation Pte Ltd and anotherUnknownYes[2014] 2 SLR 1045SingaporeCited for the principle that whether the plaintiffs’ information possesses the necessary quality of confidence is dependent on whether it would be just in the circumstances to require the party against whom a duty of confidentiality is alleged to treat the information as confidential.
Tang Siew Choy and others v Certact Pte LtdUnknownYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 835SingaporeCited for the principle that not all information that an employee is obliged to keep confidential during his employment is information that is protectable as confidential information after he ceases to be employed.
Faccenda Chicken Ltd v FowlerUnknownYes[1986] 1 All ER 617England and WalesCited for the principle that not all information that an employee is obliged to keep confidential during his employment is information that is protectable as confidential information after he ceases to be employed.
Asia Business Forum Pte Ltd v Long Ai Sin and anotherUnknownYes[2003] 4 SLR(R) 658SingaporeCited for the principle that the knowledge and experience that an employee acquires during his employment is not protectable confidential information.
Sir W C Leng & Co Limited v AndrewsUnknownYes[1909] 1 Ch 763England and WalesCited for the principle that the knowledge and experience that an employee acquires during his employment is not protectable confidential information.
E Worsley & Co Ltd v CooperUnknownYes[1939] 1 All ER 290England and WalesCited for the principle that an ex-employee of a paper merchant was entitled to use, in his future business endeavours, his knowledge of the identity of paper mills from which the former employer sourced paper.
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2014] 1 SLR 860SingaporeCited for the elements of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy.
OBG Ltd v AllanHouse of LordsYes[2008] 1 AC 1United KingdomCited for the principle that the pizza delivery companies’ criminal conduct in the latter case is ‘not an offence committed against the rival company in any realistic sense of that expression’.
Sumifru Singapore Pte Ltd v Felix Santos Ishizuka and othersHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 14SingaporeCited for the principle that the plaintiff company could not show that Felix and the defendant companies “had combined with the intention of causing damage or injury to the [plaintiff company]”.
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 1256SingaporeCited for the principle that the injury caused to the appellant company “would have been intended as a means to an end for [the respondents’] benefit”.
George Raymond Zage III and another v Ho Chi Kwong and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 589SingaporeCited for the elements of a claim in dishonest assistance.
Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and another v Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and others and another suitHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 241SingaporeCited for the principle that the reference to “the existence of a trust” in Zage “was merely a shorthand used by the court for the existence of a fiduciary relationship” and that it “suffices for liability that there was a breach of fiduciary duty”.
How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2023] 1 SLR 707SingaporeCited for the principle that the finding that no fiduciary duties are owed disposes of the claims of dishonest assistance and knowing receipt.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 655SingaporeCited for the principle that whether the parties are in a fiduciary relationship depends, ultimately, on the nature of their relationship and is not simply a question of whether their relationship can be shoe-horned into one of the settled categories.
Clearlab SG Pte Ltd v Ting Chong Chai and othersHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 163SingaporeCited for the principle that an employee may owe fiduciary duties to his employer when he is placed in a position where he must act solely in the interests of his employer to the exclusion of other interests, including his own.
Frame v SmithSupreme CourtYes[1987] 2 SCR 99CanadaCited for the factors to determine whether an employee may owe fiduciary duties to his employer.
Susilawati v American Express Bank LtdUnknownYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 737SingaporeCited for the factors to determine whether an employee may owe fiduciary duties to his employer.
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical CorpUnknownYes(1984) 55 ALR 417AustraliaCited for the principle that a critical feature of fiduciary relationships is that “the fiduciary undertakes or agrees to act for or on behalf of or in the interests of another person in the exercise of a power or discretion which will affect the interests of that other person in a legal or practical sense”.
Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd v Ching Kai Huat and othersUnknownYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 265SingaporeCited for the principle that mere authority to negotiate contracts on behalf of the company or to authorise the payment of invoices would not itself give rise to fiduciary obligations on the part of the officers of the company entrusted with such authority.
Nottingham University v FishelUnknownYes[2000] IRLR 471England and WalesCited for the principle that care must be taken not automatically to equate the duties of good faith and loyalty, or trust and confidence, with fiduciary obligations.
Canadian Aero Service Ltd v O’MalleyUnknownYes(1973) 40 DLR (3d) 371CanadaCited for the principle that the duty owed by employees to their employer, unless enlarged by contract, consisted only of respect for trade secrets and for confidentiality of customer lists.
Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 407SingaporeCited for the law on adverse inferences.
Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia LtdCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 141SingaporeCited for the law on adverse inferences.
Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet and othersHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 96SingaporeCited for the principle that an adverse inference cannot be drawn to assist the plaintiffs if the evidence adduced by them does not provide a foundation for the drawing of the adverse inference.
Grains and Industrial Products Trading Pte Ltd v Bank of India and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1308SingaporeCited for the principle that a plaintiff can only be awarded substantial damages if such damages have been proved.
Biofuel Industries Pte Ltd v V8 Environmental Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 199SingaporeCited for the principle that a plaintiff must prove both the fact of damage and its amount.

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

  • Foreign Domestic Worker
  • Employment Agency
  • Confidential Information
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Unlawful Means Conspiracy
  • Dishonest Assistance
  • Integra System
  • Pixelate Invoices

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • fiduciary duty
  • conspiracy
  • employment agency
  • foreign domestic worker
  • confidential information

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Employment Law80
Contract Law75
Breach of Confidence70
Fiduciary Duties65
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means60
Chancery and Equity50
Torts50

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Employment Law
  • Fiduciary Relationships
  • Breach of Confidence
  • Conspiracy