Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 MarsdenLR 1702

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
FP STENCIL SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
NG SIEW PHEI – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-22NCvC-156-09/2023]

Petitioner Advocates:Leonard Yeoh,Chen Mei Yan ,Respondent Advocate: Elson Beh,Cindy Khor

An employee has an implied duty of confidentiality during and after employment, and breach of this duty can result in significant damages for the employer.

Headnote:(A) Employment Law - Breach of Contract - Breach of Confidentiality - Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Unlawful Interference with Trade - The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant breached her employment contract, confidentiality duties, and fiduciary duties by deleting confidential documents and joining a competitor. The Court found that the Defendant breached her employment contract and confidentiality obligations, resulting in damages. (Paras 1-139)

(B) Implied Terms - The Court held that employees have an implied duty of confidentiality and good faith during and after employment. (Paras 38-49)

(C) Remedies - The Court awarded RM99,000.00 as global damages for breach of contract and unlawful interference. (Paras 138-139)

(D) Injunction - The Court denied the Plaintiff's request for an injunction to restrain the Defendant from using confidential information as overly broad. (Paras 107-108)

Table of Content
1. employment contract obligations and breaches. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. defendant's actions leading to investigation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. plaintiff's claims and damages sought. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. plaintiff's and defendant's contentions. (Para 29 , 30)
5. issues for judicial determination. (Para 32 , 33)
6. parties' respective contentions/submissions. (Para 34 , 35)
7. burden of proof in civil cases. (Para 36 , 37)
8. existence and implications of employment terms. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
9. implied terms of confidentiality in employment. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
10. court's analysis of evidence on deletions. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
11. defendant's failure to return properties. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)
12. misuse of confidential information. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79)
13. breach of fiduciary duty considerations. (Para 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84)
14. unlawful interference with trade. (Para 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90)
15. definition of unlawful means in tort. (Para 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96)
16. court's view on confidentiality and competition. (Para 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103)
17. court's findings and declarations. (Para 104 , 105)
18. court's orders and injunctions. (Para 106 , 107 , 108 , 109)
19. assessment of damages. (Para 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115)
20. loss of profits claim analysis. (Para 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121)
21. aggravated and exemplary damages considerations. (Para 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127)
22. final determination and global damages awarded. (Para 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138)

Anand Ponnudurai J:

Introduction

[1] It is common for employment contracts to contain terms and conditions of employment in relation to rights, responsibilities, and obligations of both parties and in some situations, the obligations may remain post cessation of employment. If and when allegations arise that there has been a breach of those obligations, an employer will generally not hesitate to take legal action against an employee. This is one such case.

[2] The Plaintiff commenced these present proceedings against the Defendant based on multiple causes of action, ie breach of employment contract; breach of duty of confidentiality; breach of fiduciary duties and fidelity; unlawful interference with the Plaintiff's business as well as the alleged wrongful conduct committed before and/or at the time of her resignation from the Plaintiff's employment.

[3] I will hereinbelow set out the salient background facts, issues to be tried, the parties' respective submissions/contentions, the applicable law and my analysis of the same in determining whether the Plaintiff has successfully proven their various allegations against the Defendant on a balance of probabilities.

Background Facts

[4] The background facts can be gleaned from the pleadings and submissions filed and the same are summarised as follows.

[5] The Plaintiff, formerly known as Dynamic Stencil Sdn Bhd is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia and changed to its current name on 29 September 2021.

[6] On 1 November 2013, the Defendant entered into an employment agreement with ATS Laser Stencil Sdn Bhd as its sales executive.

[7] On 6th August 2014, the Plaintiff, vide a sale and purchase agreement executed between ATS Laser and the Plaintiff, acquired ATS Laser's business, including its machinery, inventory, customer base, and employees. As part of this acquisition, the Defendant's employment was transferred to the Plaintiff.

[8] Between 2014 and 2021, the Defendant was given salary increments and was redesignated to "MKT - Senior Executive (Grade 6)" on 1 August 2021, as reflected in the annual appraisal letters issued between 2014 and 2021.

[9] It is pertinent to note that on 1 July 2021, the Plaintiff issued a revised Employee H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 MarsdenLR 1702

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURFP STENCIL SDN BHD – AppellantVersusNG SIEW PHEI – Respondent[Suit No: PA-22NCvC-156-09/2023]

An employee has an implied duty of confidentiality during and after employment, and breach of this duty can result in significant damages for the employer.

Cases Referred (10)

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
FP STENCIL SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
NG SIEW PHEI – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-22NCvC-156-09/2023]