Table of Content
1. dispute concerning arbitration and interim injunction applications. (Para 1 , 2)

[1] This is a dispute regarding "Chatime" bubble-tea franchise (Chatime Franchise) between La Kaffa International Co Ltd (La Kaffa) and Loob Holding Sdn Bhd (Loob) which led to arbitration in the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (Singapore Arbitral Proceedings).

[2] Pending the disposal of Singapore Arbitral Proceedings, La Kaffa and Loob filed applications for interim injunctions under s 11(1) of Arbitration Act 2005 ( AA ). Both applications are heard together and raise the following issues:

(1) whether Loob, its directors (including their spouses and immediate family members) and employees should be restrained from, amongst others, carrying on business which is identical or similar to Chatime Franchise business. This question concerns an interpretation of s 27(1) of the Franchise Act 1998 ( FA );

(2) whether Loob, its directors and employees should be enjoined from interfering with La Kaffa's rights and obligations as "Master Franchisee" to render operations consultancy to Chatime "Franchised Stores" (Chatime Franchisees) under art 17(IV) of the "Regional Exclusive Representation Agreement" dated 15 October 2013 between La Kaffa and Loob (RERA);

(3) whether Loob, its directors (including their spouses and immediate family members) and employees should be injuncted from, amongst others, disclosing, using and converting confidential information procured from La Kaffa (La Kaffa's Confidential Information) during the term of the following agreements between the parties:

(a) "Regional Exclusive Distribution Cooperation Agreement" dated 1 June 2011 (REDCA); and

(b) RERA. The construction of s 26(1) FA will be relevant to the above issue;

(4) whether Loob, its directors and employees should be restrained from passing off La Kaffa's goodwill and reputation in Chatime Franchise (La Kaffa's Goodwill);

(5) whether Loob, its directors and employees should be compelled to return to La Kaffa:

(a) all materials related to Chatime's trade marks (defined as "Logo" in art 1 RERA) (Chatime Materials); and

(b) all proprietary information belonging to La Kaffa (La Kaffa's Proprietary Information); and

(6) whether La Kaffa should be restrained from taking any action which has the effect of interfering with Loob's "Tealive" business.

B. Background

[3] La Kaffa is a limited liability company established in 2004 under the laws of the Republic of China (Taiwan) with a principal place of business in Taiwan. La Kaffa is listed on the Taipei Exchange.

[4] Loob is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia.

[5] La Kaffa (as a foreign person) has been approved by the Registrar of Franchise under s 54(2) FA to sell Chatime Franchise in Malaysia.

[6] La Kaffa and Loob first entered into REDCA which provided that, amongst others, La Kaffa as the franchisor, agreed for Loob to be the Master Franchisee of Chatime Franchise in Malaysia. La Kaffa and Loob subsequently entered into RERA which superseded REDCA [art 2(VI) RERA].

[7] La Kaffa alleged that Loob had breached RERA (Loob's Alleged Breaches) by, amongst others:

(1) Loob's failure to purchase all raw materials from La Kaffa as required by art 7 RERA;

(2) Loob failed to allow La Kaffa to inspect and/or audit, among others, Loob's accounts, books and records; and

(3) Loob's failure to pay for raw materials purchased from La Kaffa.

[8] In accordance with art 18(II) RERA, La Kaffa's then solicitors in Singapore gave a Notice of Arbitration dated 28 October 2016 to Loob and commenced Singapore Arbitral Proceedings based on Loob's Alleged Breaches (La Kaffa's Arbitral Claim). Loob gave notice of a counterclaim in Singapore Arbitral Proceedings that La Kaffa had breached RERA (Loob's Arbitral Counterclaim).

[9] La Kaffa terminated RERA by way of a notice dated 5 January 2017 (La Kaffa's Termination Notice) to, amongst others, Mr Bryan Loo Woi Lip (Mr Loo). Mr Loo is Loob's Managing Director

[10] After the t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document