ATT Systems v Centricore: Breach of Confidence, Contract, Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy

ATT Systems (S’pore) Pte Ltd and ATT Infosoft Pte Ltd sued Centricore (S) Pte Ltd, Faruk Bin Abdul Kather, and others in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, alleging breach of confidence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, inducement of breach of contract, and conspiracy. The case arose after several employees left ATT Systems and ATT Infosoft to join or form Centricore, a competing company. Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah J found in favor of the plaintiffs on claims of breach of confidence, breach of contract, inducement of breach of contract, and conspiracy by unlawful means.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiffs on claims of breach of confidence, breach of contract, inducement of breach of contract, and conspiracy by unlawful means.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

ATT Systems sues Centricore for breach of confidence and contract after employees left to form a competing company. The court found in favor of ATT Systems on most claims.

1.7 Decision Date

22 January 2025

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
ATT Systems (S’pore) Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Ang Hsueh Ling Celeste of Wong & Leow LLC Pradeep Nair of Wong & Leow LLC Lee Jia Wei Spencer of Wong & Leow LLC Yiu Kai Tai of Wong & Leow LLC
ATT Infosoft Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Ang Hsueh Ling Celeste of Wong & Leow LLC Pradeep Nair of Wong & Leow LLC Lee Jia Wei Spencer of Wong & Leow LLC Yiu Kai Tai of Wong & Leow LLC
Centricore (S) Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Namazie Mirza Mohamed of Mallal & Namazie Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie
Faruk Bin Abdul Kather	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Namazie Mirza Mohamed of Mallal & Namazie Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie
Toh Shenglong Louis	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Namazie Mirza Mohamed of Mallal & Namazie Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie
Kyaw Htun Win	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Namazie Mirza Mohamed of Mallal & Namazie Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie
Danesh s/o Sudinthan Pillai	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Namazie Mirza Mohamed of Mallal & Namazie Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie
Kyaw Khaing	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Namazie Mirza Mohamed of Mallal & Namazie Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie
Aung Thiha Aung	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Namazie Mirza Mohamed of Mallal & Namazie Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie
IdGates Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Namazie Mirza Mohamed of Mallal & Namazie Chua Boon Beng of Mallal & Namazie

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ang Hsueh Ling Celeste	Wong & Leow LLC
Pradeep Nair	Wong & Leow LLC
Lee Jia Wei Spencer	Wong & Leow LLC
Yiu Kai Tai	Wong & Leow LLC
Namazie Mirza Mohamed	Mallal & Namazie
Chua Boon Beng	Mallal & Namazie

4. Facts

Individual defendants resigned from ATT Infosoft and joined Centricore or IdGates.
Mr. Faruk stored confidential information on his personal Dropbox and ESD.
Mr. Faruk shared his personal Dropbox folder with Mr. Toh and Mr. Kyaw HW.
Centricore submitted a bid for the HPB Tender that was slightly lower than ATT Infosoft's bid.
Mr. Faruk prepared four maintenance proposals under IdGates’ name while employed by ATT Infosoft.
Mr. Kyaw HW used data wiping tools on his company-issued laptop before returning it.
Mr. Faruk helped Mr. Kyaw K and Mr. Aung with their work pass applications.

5. Formal Citations

ATT Systems (S’pore) Pte Ltd and another v Centricore (S) Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 447 of 2021, [2025] SGHC 13

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-11-01	ATT Infosoft incorporated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ATT Systems.
2019-03-01	Mr. Faruk and Mr. Toh planned to leave ATT Infosoft.
2019-05-03	Mr. Faruk and Mr. Toh signed a tenancy agreement for office space.
2019-07-29	Mr. Faruk resigned from ATT Infosoft.
2019-08-16	Mr. Kyaw HW and Mr. Danesh resigned from ATT Infosoft.
2019-08-19	Centricore was incorporated.
2019-08-26	IdGates submitted a work pass application for Mr. Kyaw K.
2019-09-09	Mr. Faruk became a shareholder and director of IdGates.
2019-09-11	Mr. Kyaw K resigned from ATT Infosoft.
2019-09-30	Mr. Aung resigned from ATT Infosoft.
2019-10-03	Mr. Kyaw HW sent documents in a WhatsApp group chat with the plaintiffs’ clients.
2019-10-14	ATT Infosoft terminated the employment of Mr. Kyaw HW and Mr. Danesh.
2019-10-16	ATT Infosoft terminated the employment of Mr. Faruk.
2019-11-01	ATT Infosoft terminated the employment of Mr. Toh.
2019-11-11	Mr. Toh became a shareholder and a director of IdGates.
2019-11-15	Mr. Kyaw K joined IdGates and was seconded to Centricore.
2019-12-01	Mr. Aung joined IdGates and was seconded to Centricore.
2020-06-18	Health Promotion Board put out a public tender for the maintenance, support and servicing of an EQMS.
2021-01-01	Suit No 447 of 2021 filed in the General Division of the High Court.
2023-07-11	Trial began.
2024-08-13	Trial concluded.
2025-01-23	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Faruk, Mr. Toh, Mr. Kyaw HW, Mr. Danesh, Centricore, and IdGates breached their obligations of confidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unauthorised use of confidential information
  - Wrongful gain
  - Wrongful loss
- Related Cases:
  - [2020] 1 SLR 1130
  - [1969] RPC 41
Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Faruk, Mr. Toh, Mr. Kyaw HW, Mr. Danesh, Mr. Kyaw K, and Mr. Aung breached their employment contracts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of loyalty obligation
  - Breach of ISO obligation
  - Breach of non-competition obligation
  - Breach of confidentiality obligation
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs did not prove that Mr. Faruk and Mr. Toh breached their fiduciary duties.
- Category: Substantive
Inducement of Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Faruk induced Mr. Toh, Mr. Kyaw HW, Mr. Danesh, Mr. Kyaw K, and Mr. Aung to breach their employment contracts.
- Category: Substantive
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means
- Outcome: The court found that there was a conspiracy by unlawful means involving the defendants.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Injunctive Relief

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Confidence
Breach of Contract
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Inducement of Breach of Contract
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Employment Law
Intellectual Property
Confidentiality
Corporate Law

11. Industries

Technology
Information Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 1130	Singapore	Clarified the law on breach of confidence, protecting both wrongful gain and wrongful loss interests.
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1969] RPC 41	N/A	Established the traditional elements for breach of confidence based on wrongful gain.
Shanghai Afute Food and Beverage Management Co Ltd v Tan Swee Meng and others	N/A	Yes	[2024] 3 SLR 1098	Singapore	Explained the application of the approach in I-Admin regarding wrongful gain and wrongful loss interests in breach of confidence claims.
Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and another v Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and others	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 241	Singapore	Confirmed that both wrongful gain and wrongful loss claims may be put forward in the same case.
Adinop Co Ltd v Rovithai Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 808	Singapore	Addressed the interaction between equitable and contractual obligations of confidence.
Invenpro (M) Sdn Bhd v JCS Automation Pte Ltd and anor	N/A	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1045	Singapore	Stated that the requirement of the law is whether the information is publicly known or accessible.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Yee Heng Khay (alias Roger)	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 168	Singapore	Stated that the requirement of the law is whether the information is publicly known or accessible.
Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani v Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani and Ors	N/A	Yes	[2022] 3 SLR 1211	Singapore	It was not necessary to particularise each and every confidential document in a claim for breach of confidence.
Tempcool Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Chong Vincent and others	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 100	Singapore	Any form of use or disclosure would be unauthorised use.
Solomon Alliance Management Pte Ltd v Pang Chee Kuan	N/A	Yes	[2019] 4 SLR 577	Singapore	The courts should favour freedom of trade and that the employees’ obligations should be construed on the basis only of what is expressly provided for.
Hewlett-Packard Singapore (Sales) Pte Ltd v Chin Shu Hwa Corinna	N/A	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 1083	Singapore	The rule is one of construction in a situation of ambiguity, for which no guidance is given by the context.
LTT Global Consultants v BMC Academy Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 903	Singapore	The rule is one of construction in a situation of ambiguity, for which no guidance is given by the context.
Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew Stewart	N/A	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 308	Singapore	Addressed the implied duty of good faith and fidelity.
Clearlab SG Pte Ltd v Ting Chong Chai and others	N/A	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 163	Singapore	Knowledge of directors should be imputed to the corporate entity.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 655	Singapore	Set out the elements of inducement of breach of contract.
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 860	Singapore	Outlined the requirements for a claim of conspiracy by unlawful means.
Lim Oon Kuin and others v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 280	Singapore	The Coco test requires the plaintiff to establish the following: (i) That the information in question has the necessary quality of confidence about it. (ii) The information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. (iii) There must be an unauthorised use of the information, and in appropriate cases, this use must be to the detriment of the party who originally communicated it.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Visitor Management Systems
Electronic Queue Management Systems
Confidential Information
Non-competition Obligation
Loyalty Obligation
ISO Obligation
Data Wiping Tools
HPB Tender
Maintenance Proposals
Mass Resignations

15.2 Keywords

Breach of Confidence
Breach of Contract
Fiduciary Duty
Conspiracy
Employment
Singapore
High Court
Technology
Visitor Management
ATT Systems
Centricore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Breach of Confidence	95
Breach of Contract	90
Inducement of Breach of Contract	85
Trade Secrets	80
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	75
Torts	70
Unfair Competition	60
Fiduciary Duties	60
Employment Law	50
Commercial Disputes	50
Commercial Law	40
Labor and Employment	40
Commercial Litigation	40
Director Liability	30
Directors and Officers Liability	30
Litigation	30
Civil Litigation	30
Negligence	20
Corporate Law	20

16. Subjects

Breach of Confidence
Contract Law
Employment Law
Fiduciary Duty
Conspiracy
Tort