The court requires precise identification of confidential information to prove breach of confidence and grant ex parte Anton Piller orders.

Table of Content
1. establishment of case facts and context. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. nature and purpose of the applications. (Para 2 , 3)
3. confidential information must be clearly defined. (Para 7)
4. disclosure requirements in ex parte applications. (Para 8)

[1] The three plaintiff companies (plaintiffs) have obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order (Ex Parte APO) against the two defendants (defendants).

[2] This judgment concerns the following four applications:

(1) the plaintiffs application in court encl no 4 (encl 4) for the following orders:

(a) an inter partes APO;

(b) an inter partes interlocutory mandatory injunction to compel the 1st defendant (1st defendant) to deliver to the plaintiffs, amongst others, all confidential information (Confidential Information) which belongs to the plaintiffs and their group of companies (plaintiffs Group);

(c) an inter partes interlocutory mandatory injunction to compel the 1st defendant to disclose to the plaintiffs solicitors by way of an affidavit, amongst others, certain information regarding communication between 1st defendant and 2nd defendant company (2nd defendant); and

(d) an inter partes interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from, amongst others, disclosing, divulging, using, communicating, disseminating and publishing the Confidential Information pending the disposal of this suit;

(2) the 2nd defendant applied in court encl no 15 (encl 15) to set aside the Ex Parte APO;

(3) court encl no 21 (encl 21) is the 1st defendants application to set aside the Ex Parte APO; and

(4) after the hearing of encls 4, 15 and 21 (three applications), this court, amongst others:

(a) allowed encls 15 and 21. Hence, the Ex Parte APO was set aside; and

(b) dismissed encl 4.

The Plaintiffs Subsequently Applied In court Enclosure No 100 To Discontinue This Suit Against The 2nd Defendant (Encl 100).

[3] The above four applications raise the following issues, amongst others:

(1) whether the Ex Parte APO should be set aside due to, amongst others, the plaintiffs failure to specify the Confidential Information;

(2) should the court grant an inter partes APO when, amongst others, the plaintiffs did not execute the Ex Parte APO by entering the defendants premises to search for and to seize evidence relevant to this case?;

(3) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an interlocutory injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from, amongst others, disclosing, divulging, using, communicating, disseminating and publishing the Confidential Information pending the disposal of this action;

(4) whether the court should exercise its discretion under O 59 rr 2(2), 3(1), (2), 8(b) and 21 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC) to deprive the 1st defendant of the costs of encl 4 and 21 because the 1st defendant had lied to his employer, the 1st plaintiff company (1st plaintiff), regarding his reasons for leaving his employment; and

(5) when a plaintiff applies for leave of the court to discontinue an action under O 21 r 3(1) ROC, how should the court exercise its discretion to grant leave and if leave is given, should the court impose certain terms?

Background

[4] The Statement of Claim in this case (SOC) pleaded as follows, amongst others:

(1) the 2nd plaintiff company (2nd plaintiff) is the holding company of the 1st plaintiff while the 3rd plaintiff company (3rd plaintiff) is "affiliated" with the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs and plaintiffs Group produce, amongst others, medical, high risk, "cleanroom" and sterile gloves;

(2) on or about 1 August 2012, the 1st defendant joined the 1st plaintiff as its Technical Manager. The 1st defendant had executed the following agreements:

(a) letter of employment dated 13 June 2012 with the 1st plaintiff (Employment Contract); and

(b) "Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement" dated 27 March 2013 (CNDA) with Platinum Glove Industries Sdn Bhd (PGISB). PGISB is a wholly owned subsidiary of the 2nd plaintiff;

(3) the 2nd defendant is a public listed company which is involved in, amongst others, the bu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document