Intertek Testing Services v Haidir bin Mohamad Khir: Discovery Dispute in Employment Contract Breach

In Intertek Testing Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Haidir bin Mohamad Khir, the Singapore High Court addressed two appeals concerning discovery applications in a suit involving alleged breaches of an employment agreement. Intertek sued Haidir for breaching contractual obligations, specifically non-solicitation clauses. Haidir appealed the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant specific discovery of documents related to communications with Intertek's customers (RA 183) and to refuse specific discovery of documents related to Intertek's damages calculation (RA 182). The High Court allowed RA 182 in part, ordering discovery of documents related to Intertek's expenses, and allowed RA 183 in full, disallowing discovery of post-writ documents.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

RA 182 allowed in part and RA 183 allowed in full.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on discovery applications in a case involving Intertek and Haidir, concerning alleged breaches of an employment agreement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Intertek Testing Services (Singapore) Pte LtdPlaintiff, Defendant in CounterclaimCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial
Haidir bin Mohamad KhirDefendant, Plaintiff in CounterclaimIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan May Lian FeliciaTSMP Law Corporation
Ang Kai LeTSMP Law Corporation
Goh Enchi JeanneTSMP Law Corporation
Uday DuggalTSMP Law Corporation
Toh Yunyuan SelinaPremier Law LLC
Lin YuankaiPremier Law LLC
Boey Swee SiangPremier Law LLC
Suchitra Suresh KumarPremier Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. Intertek sued Haidir for alleged breaches of an employment agreement, specifically non-solicitation clauses.
  2. Haidir appealed the Assistant Registrar's decision on two discovery applications.
  3. RA 182 concerned the refusal of specific discovery of documents related to Intertek's damages calculation.
  4. RA 183 concerned the grant of specific discovery of documents related to communications with Intertek's customers.
  5. The court allowed RA 182 in part, ordering discovery of documents related to Intertek's expenses.
  6. The court allowed RA 183 in full, disallowing discovery of post-writ documents.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Intertek Testing Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Haidir bin Mohamad Khir, Suit No 616 of 2021 (Registrar’s Appeals Nos 182 and 183 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 320

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendant's employment with plaintiff started
Executive Agreement between plaintiff and defendant
Defendant tendered his resignation
Plaintiff issued a Notice of Termination of Employment
Defendant signed an employment agreement with Saybolt (Singapore) Pte Ltd
Plaintiff commenced the Suit against the defendant
Defendant pleaded defences in respect of his alleged breaches of cll 11.2.1 and 11.2.2 of the Employment Agreement
Plaintiff pleaded that the defendant breached cll 11.2.1 and 11.2.2 of the Employment Agreement
HC/SUM 1536/2023 filed
Judgment reserved
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Specific Discovery
    • Outcome: The court allowed RA 182 in part and RA 183 in full, concerning the scope of specific discovery.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court considered the implications of breaches of contract occurring after the date of the writ.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Damages Quantification
    • Outcome: The court determined that the plaintiff could only claim damages based on the Profit Method.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Petroleum
  • Fuel
  • Lubricant
  • Petrochemical

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AGHigh CourtYes[2007] SGHC 69SingaporeCited for the principle that parties seeking discovery must show a nexus between the pleaded causes of action and the documents they want discovered.
UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 95SingaporeCited for the principle that discovery sought in relation to an issue unrelated to the pleaded causes of action may constitute an impermissible fishing exercise.
EQ Capital Investments Ltd v Sunbreeze Group Investments Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHCR 15SingaporeCited for a summary of the applicable law on specific discovery.
The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 98SingaporeCited for the principle that the court’s jurisdiction to grant an order for specific discovery is enlivened when there is sufficient evidence to show that the requested documents are in the possession, custody or power of the requested party and the requested documents are relevant.
CIFG Special Assets Capital I Ltd (formerly known as Diamond Kendall Ltd) v Polimet Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2016] 1 SLR 1382SingaporeCited for the principle that if discovery is sought of a class of documents rather than a specific document, relevance must be shown in relation to the entire class described as a class, and not only some parts of the class.
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and other applicationsHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 39SingaporeCited for the principle that even after the court’s jurisdiction has been engaged, the court still retains a discretion to decide whether or not to make the order for specific discovery.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and AnotherHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 26SingaporeCited by the defendant for the proposition that even if the parties’ pleadings only contain an averment for damages to be assessed, the court is not precluded from allowing discovery.
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 a plaintiff’s expectation loss would encompass the plaintiff’s total (or gross) loss – including the expected (or net) profit that the plaintiff would have received had there been no breach of contract as well as his expected expenses, which he would have recouped if the contract had been performed.
Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v OP3 International Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2020] 3 SLR 1234SingaporeCited for an illustration of the distinction between the “gross” or “net” points of view in calculating expectation loss.
Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd and other appealsAppellate Division of the High CourtYes[2023] 1 SLR 536SingaporeCited for the principle that the key concern is ensuring that a plaintiff is not compensated for loss that it did not actually suffer, or that it is compensated twice over for the same loss.
Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn BhdEnglish High CourtYes[2012] EWHC 616 (Ch)England and WalesCited for a summary of the possible scenarios for calculating expectation loss.
Van Der Horst Engineering Pte Ltd v Rotol Singapore LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 586SingaporeCited for the principle that where a plaintiff has a choice as to the characterisation of damages arising from breach of contract, the plaintiff bears the burden of exercising that choice as a matter of law.
Liu Shu Ming and another v Koh Chew Chee and another matterAppellate Division of the High CourtYes[2023] 1 SLR 1477SingaporeCited for the principle that where a plaintiff has a choice as to the characterisation of damages arising from breach of contract, the plaintiff bears the burden of exercising that choice as a matter of law.
Saga Foodstuffs Manufacturing (Pte) Ltd v Best Food Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 505SingaporeCited for the principle that a party cannot amend his pleadings to include a cause of action that did not exist at the date when the writ was filed.
Larking v Great Western (Nepean) Gravel LtdHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1940) 64 CLR 221AustraliaCited for the difference between a continuing breach and a breach once-and-for-all.
AMT Futures Ltd v Boural and othersEnglish High CourtYes[2018] 3 WLR 358England and WalesCited for the principle that every breach of the same term in a contract would constitute a successive breach that is independent of earlier breaches of the same term.
Maclaine v GattyHouse of LordsYes[1921] 1 AC 376United KingdomCited for the principle that the commission of two independent breaches each confers an independent right to terminate the performance of a contract.
Eshelby v Federated European Bank LtdEnglish High CourtYes[1932] 1 KB 254England and WalesCited for the principle that the non-payment of the second instalment was a separate cause of action that did not exist at the time when the writ was issued and would need to be claimed in a separate action.
DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd and others and another suitSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 1SingaporeCited by the plaintiff for the principle that post-writ conduct could be relied on as evidence of oppressive conduct continuing beyond the date of the writ.
Leiman, Ricardo and another v Noble Resources Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 386SingaporeCited for the principle that when interpreting contracts, due consideration ought to be given to the commercial purpose of the transaction or provision, and more narrowly, to why a particular obligation was undertaken.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 24 rr 5 and 7 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
O 18 r 9 of the ROC 2014
O 18 r 15(2)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Specific Discovery
  • Employment Agreement
  • Breach of Contract
  • Restricted Period
  • Relevant Services
  • Profit Method
  • Revenue Method
  • Continuing Breach
  • Successive Breach

15.2 Keywords

  • Discovery
  • Employment Contract
  • Breach of Contract
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract90
Contract Law90
Discovery of documents85
Damages80
Civil Procedure75

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Discovery
  • Employment Law