Chao Hick Tin J:

The plaintiffs, Certact Pte. Ltd., are a company that deal in various types of industrial equipment. They import goods from overseas and sell to customers in Singapore as well as in other countries in this region. They are the exclusive and non-exclusive importers/distributors of highly specialised products like machine tools, diamond tools, coolants, abrasives and other component and equipment for the metal works industry.

On an ex parte application of the plaintiffs, I granted an interim injunction with an Anton Piller order against the defendants. The defendants applied to have the interim injunction (but not the Anton Piller order) dissolved.

After hearing the parties, I ordered that a substantial part of the interim injunction be continued. I now give my reasons.

At the time of the commencement of the action, Certact were, pursuant to an agreement, the non-exclusive distributors in the region for an American company, Cinciannati Milacron Marketing Company (hereinafter referred to as "Milacron"). The products of Milacron included Cimcool metalworking fluids, grinding wheels and Cimcool equipment. By another agreement dated 24 July 1987, Certact were the exclusive distributors for another American company, Cogsdill Tool Products Inc., of Michigan (Cogsdill) in this region. Cogsdill produced, inter alia, tools and components for the metal works industry. Finally through a course of business dealings, Certact were also appointed the exclusive distributors in this region in respect of tools and components produced by an English company, Shefcut Tool and Engineering Ltd., of Sheffield (Shefcut).

The 1st defendant, Tang, became an employee of the plaintiffs in October 1981. He started off as a technical sales executive. In April 1986 he was promoted to the post of sales manager and headed the Industrial Machine Tools & Chemical (IMTC) Department at Certact. Under the terms of his employment, as set out in a letter dated 1 October 1981, Tang was expected to dedicate all his time to the service of Certact and was not to engage in any outside activities contrary to Certact's interest. In addition he was not to divulge to anyone who was not an employee of Certact, any confidential information or matters which concerned Certact's affairs. In his capacity as head of the IMTC department, he was wholly responsible for the direction and planning of IMTC and for the promotion of sales and distribution. He was also required to monitor and maintain close contact and relationship with clients in order to meet and understand their specific or special needs and requirements. Certact said that by virtue of his position, Tang had access to highly confidential information and/or trade secrets.

Certact contended that implicit from his contract of employment:

(a) Tang should not, so long as the contract of employment subsisted, misuse any information confidential to Certact or disclose or divulge such information to any third party;

(b) Tang should not, following the termination of his employment with Certact, disclose or divulge or unlawfully use any trade secrets or other confidential information of Certact.

The 2nd defendant, Chua, first became an employee of Certact on appointment as a sales engineer by a letter dated 9 February 1987. As was the case with Tang, Chua was also, under his terms of appointment, required to dedicate full time to Certact, not to engage in any activity contrary to the interest of Certact and not to divulge confidential information of Certact to any person not employed by Certact. He worked under the direct supervision of Tang. Certact alleged that as a result he was in a position to and did acquire knowledge of the products, policies and marketing strategies of IMTC in the promotion and expansion of the sale and distribution of the products handled by Certact. Certact contended that as was the case with Tang, it was an implied term of his contract of employment that Chua should not, following