Table of Content
1. breach of confidentiality not distinguished from restraint of trade. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. prayers were too broad and oppressive. (Para 4 , 10)
3. the court emphasized the necessity for clear and precise legal arguments. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 14 , 15)
4. pleadings required specificity regarding confidential information. (Para 6 , 12 , 16)
5. failure by trial judge to analyze breaches. (Para 9 , 11)
6. appeal allowed and costs ordered. (Para 17 , 18)

[1] The appellants/defendants appeal against the decision of the learned trial judge who had allowed a claim in essence for breach of confidential information not only against the 1st appellant who was the former Manager of the respondent/plaintiff but also against the 2nd and 3rd appellants who are partners of a business known as GPMR Trading.

[2] What is important to note in this case is that the learned trial judge has failed to make a distinction in relation to prayers related to breach of confidential information and prayers relating to restraint of trade. The prayers of the respondent does not identify the nature of the information which the respondent is seeking an injunction taking into consideration that it is an admitted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document