JUDGMENT

Anand Ponnudurai JC:

(Enclosure 22 & 24)

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff commenced this action against 6 Defendants. The 1st Defendant ("D1") was a former employee and Director of the Plaintiff who had subsequently incorporated the 2nd Defendant ("D2") which the Plaintiff pleads is in competition with it and that D1 had breached his fiduciary duties by attempting to solicit its customers as well as inducing the Plaintiff's sales team to resign and join D2.

[2] Whilst D1 was the majority shareholder and a Director of D2, it is pleaded that the 3rd'4th, 5th and 6th Defendants ("D3, D4, D5 and D6") are the other shareholders of D2 with D3 being the only other Director of D2 besides D1.

[3] Pursuant to close of pleadings, D3 filed encl 22 whilst D4 to D6 filed encl 24, both of which were premised on O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC") to strike out the Plaintiff's claim against them.

[4] As both enclosures were based on primarily the same facts, they were heard together. Having considered all submissions and upon hearing Learned counsel, I had allowed both encl 22 and 24 with costs and directed that the Plaintiff's claim against D1 and D2 only proceed to trial.

[5] I will now set o