The court established that injunctive relief requires serious questions to be tried and that damages must be inadequate; the balance of convenience favored the defendants, leading to the dismissal of the injunction application.

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 3 is the Plaintiff's application for an interim injunction pursuant to O 29 r 1 and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) for the following orders:

1. An injunction to restrain the Defendants from:

Approach, contact, call, correspond, take, entice, induce, solicit, persuade and/or otherwise deal with each and every customer of the Plaintiff whose names are as set out in Annexure A hereto; Approach, contact, call, correspond, take, entice, induce, solicit, persuade and/or otherwise deal with each and every employee of the Plaintiff to solicit, elicit, procure and/or obtain confidential information and/or materials and/or documents and/or trade secrets as set out in Annexure B;

Using, divulging, exploiting, and/or disclosing for the Defendant's benefit or the benefit of others, all or any or more categories of the Plaintiff's confidential information and/or materials and/or documents and/or trade secrets as listed in Annexure B hereto such as information concerning the Plaintiff's customers, candidates or business associates or otherwise exploiting the said confidential information without the Plaintiff's consent irrespective of whether the information are contained in or directly or indirectly derived from any of the Plaintiff's confidential information and/or materials and/or documents and/or trade secrets including but not limited to those particulars set out in Annexure B hereto;

Making use of, copying, publishing or reproducing or distributing, circulating or disclosing to any person or causing the publication, reproduction or distribution or circulation or disclosure, the information contained in or directly or indirectly derived from the Plaintiff's confidential information and/or materials and/or documents and/or trade secrets including but not limited to those particulars set out in Annexure B hereto;

Disclosing to others or making use of confidential information of the Plaintiff's customers, candidates or business associates or other confidential information as listed in Annexure B hereto to directly or indirectly approach, contact, correspond, take, entice, induce, solicit or persuade any person or entity who or which was or is a customer of the Plaintiff as named in Annexure A hereto to undertake or perform work to undertake or perform work or services for that person or entity to cease doing business with the Plaintiff or reduce the amount of business which the person or entity would normally do with the Plaintiff.

2. An injunction to compel the Defendants to deliver up all of the Plaintiff's confidential information as listed in Annexure B for safekeeping.

3. The Defendants must file an affidavit confirming compliance with the prayers set out above within ten (10) days.

[2] On 16 October 2024, after hearing both parties, I dismissed the Plaintiff's application with cost. The Plaintiff has now appealed to the Court of Appeal, and my reasons are below.

Brief Facts

[3] The Plaintiff's cause of action against the Defendants is for breach of fiduciary duties, confidentiality as employees of the Plaintiff, trade secrets, interference with Plaintiff's business and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.

[4] The Plaintiff, HILTI (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd is a company incorporated in Malaysia since 1986 and in the business of trading power tools, industrial fasteners and accessories. The Plaintiff's primary area of business is s