Priscilla Lim v Amber Compounding: Breach of Confidence & Damages
In the Singapore Court of Appeal case of *Priscilla Lim Suk Ling and UrbanRx Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and Amber Laboratories Pte Ltd*, the court addressed an appeal concerning a breach of confidence claim. The appellants had entered into a consent judgment admitting to unauthorized use of the respondents' confidential information. The appeal centered on whether the respondents could claim both traditional damages for wrongful gain and equitable damages for wrongful loss in the same action. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the consent judgment limited the respondents' claim to damages for wrongful gain only, rendering the initial issue moot. The court clarified the application of *Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd* and *I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting* in assessing damages for breach of confidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the republic of singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal on breach of confidence. Court clarifies wrongful gain vs. wrongful loss damages under Coco and I-Admin, emphasizing consent judgment terms.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priscilla Lim Suk Ling | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| UrbanRx Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd | Appellant, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Amber Laboratories Pte Ltd | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Muhammad ‘Ainul Yaqien Bin Mohamed Zin | Defendant | Individual | Not Available | Neutral | |
| Daniel James Tai Hann | Defendant | Individual | Not Available | Neutral | |
| Tee I-Lin Cheryl | Defendant | Individual | Not Available | Neutral | |
| Tan Bo Chuan | Defendant | Individual | Not Available | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Senior Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Ms. Lim worked part-time for Amber Compounding Pharmacy.
- Ms. Lim and Daniel James Tai Hann incorporated UrbanRx Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd.
- Respondents alleged breach of confidence by former employees, including appellants.
- Appellants admitted to unauthorized access and use of confidential information in a consent judgment.
- The consent judgment was predicated solely on the unauthorized use of the Confidential Information.
- The Judge invited parties to reach an agreement as to whether the respondents are entitled to claim both traditional damages for wrongful gain and equitable damages for wrongful loss in the same action.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and another v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another, Civil Appeal No 38 of 2023, [2024] SGCA 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ms. Lim worked for the first respondent on a part-time basis. | |
| Ms. Lim worked for the first respondent again between May/June to July. | |
| Ms Lim and Daniel James Tai Hann incorporated UrbanRx Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd. | |
| Respondents commenced HC/S 164/2018 alleging breach of confidence. | |
| Consent judgment entered into. | |
| Appellate Division granted permission to appeal. | |
| Court of Appeal heard the appeal. | |
| Grounds of decision delivered by Steven Chong JCA. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court clarified the principles for assessing damages, distinguishing between wrongful gain and wrongful loss, and emphasizing the impact of the consent judgment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unauthorized use of confidential information
- Wrongful gain
- Wrongful loss
- Related Cases:
- [1969] RPC 41
- [2020] 1 SLR 1130
- Interpretation of Consent Judgment
- Outcome: The court held that the consent judgment limited the respondents' claim to damages for wrongful gain only.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of admission
- Effect on remedies
- Circumstances for setting aside
- Related Cases:
- [1992] 3 SLR(R) 841
- [2005] 1 SLR(R) 28
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for breach of confidence
- Equitable remedies of confidentiality
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Confidence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Confidentiality
- Damages Assessment
11. Industries
- Pharmaceutical
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd | Not Available | Yes | [1969] RPC 41 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles governing traditional damages for wrongful gain in breach of confidence cases. |
| I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1130 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing equitable damages for wrongful loss in breach of confidence cases; distinguished in the context of the consent judgment. |
| Indian Overseas Bank v Motorcycle Industries (1973) Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 841 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a consent judgment supersedes pleaded claims. |
| Bakery Mart Pte Ltd v Ng Wei Teck Michael and others | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 28 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court will generally not interfere with the terms of a consent judgment. |
| Lim Oon Kuin and others v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 280 | Singapore | Clarifies the requirement under the I-Admin test that the defendant must be an unauthorised “taker”. |
| LVM Law Chambers LLC v Wan Hoe Keet and another and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1083 | Singapore | Cited regarding the misuse of confidential information by the defendant. |
| Swift Maids Pte Ltd and another v Cheong Yi Qiang and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 317 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that not every component of allegedly confidential information has the necessary quality of confidence. |
| Asia Petworld Pte Ltd v Sivabalan s/o Ramasami and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 805 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that not all information an employee is obliged to keep confidential during employment is protectable after employment ceases. |
| Clearlab SG Pte Ltd v Ting Chong Chai and others | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 163 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that some information may be used without authorization while others are not. |
| Stratech Systems Limited v Guthrie Properties (S) Pte Ltd and Another | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 77 | Singapore | Cited regarding the confidentiality of technical information. |
| Writers Studio Pte Ltd v Chin Kwok Yung | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2023] 4 SLR 814 | Singapore | Cited regarding pleading with specificity whether proceeding on the basis of the ‘wrongful loss’ or ‘wrongful gain’ interest. |
| Shanghai Afute Food and Beverage Management Co Ltd v Tan Swee Meng and others | General Division | Yes | [2024] 3 SLR 1098 | Singapore | Cited regarding determining whether the defendant’s actions were an incursion to the wrongful gain interest or the wrongful loss interest. |
| Prince Albert v Strange | Not Available | Yes | 47 ER 1302 | England and Wales | Cited as an early case establishing the jurisdiction to grant an injunction against improperly obtained information. |
| Morison v Moat | Not Available | Yes | 9 Hare 241 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for granting an injunction against the use of a secret relating to the making of a medicine. |
| Saltman Engineering Co Ltd v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd | Not Available | Yes | 65 RPC 203 | England and Wales | Cited as reinforcing the position that a claim for breach of confidence was a distinctive cause of action that arose independently of contract. |
| Duchess of Argyll v Duke of Argyll | Not Available | Yes | [1967] Ch 302 | England and Wales | Cited as reinforcing the position that a claim for breach of confidence was a distinctive cause of action that arose independently of contract. |
| Seager v Copydex Ltd | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | [1967] 1 WLR 923 | England and Wales | Cited as reinforcing the position that a claim for breach of confidence was a distinctive cause of action that arose independently of contract. |
| Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | [2001] 2 WLR 992 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the boundaries of the law of confidence. |
| Talbot v General Television Corporation Pty Ltd | Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1981] RPC 1 | Australia | Cited regarding damages assessed based on the diminished value of a television concept. |
| Dowson & Mason Ltd v Potter and Another | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | [1986] 1 WLR 1419 | England and Wales | Cited regarding damages assessed on the basis of the plaintiffs’ loss of manufacturing profits. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 33 r 2 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Confidential Information
- Consent Judgment
- Wrongful Gain
- Wrongful Loss
- Unauthorized Use
- Breach of Confidence
- Damages Assessment
- I-Admin
- Coco
15.2 Keywords
- breach of confidence
- damages
- wrongful gain
- wrongful loss
- consent judgment
- intellectual property
- pharmacy
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Confidence | 95 |
| Intellectual Property Law | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Breach of Confidence
- Damages
- Consent Judgment
- Civil Procedure