An employee has an implied duty of confidentiality that continues post-employment; breaches of this duty via deletion of company documents and retention of proprietary information are actionable.

Introduction

[1] It is common for employment contracts to contain terms and conditions of employment in relation to rights, responsibilities, and obligations of both parties and in some situations, the obligations may remain post cessation of employment. If and when allegations arise that there has been a breach of those obligations, an employer will generally not hesitate to take legal action against an employee. This is one such case.

[2] The Plaintiff commenced these present proceedings against the Defendant based on multiple causes of action, ie breach of employment contract; breach of duty of confidentiality; breach of fiduciary duties and fidelity; unlawful interference with the Plaintiff's business as well as the alleged wrongful conduct committed before and/or at the time of her resignation from the Plaintiff's employment.

[3] I will hereinbelow set out the salient background facts, issues to be tried, the parties' respective submissions/contentions, the applicable law and my analysis of the same in determining whether the Plaintiff has successfully proven their various allegations against the Defendant on a balance of probabilities.

Background Facts

[4] The background facts can be gleaned from the pleadings and submissions filed and the same are summarised as follows.

[5] The Plaintiff, formerly known as Dynamic Stencil Sdn Bhd is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia and changed to its current name on 29 September 2021.

[6] On 1 November 2013, the Defendant entered into an employment agreement with ATS Laser Stencil Sdn Bhd as its sales executive.

[7] On 6th August 2014, the Plaintiff, vide a sale and purchase agreement executed between ATS Laser and the Plaintiff, acquired ATS Laser's business, including its machinery, inventory, customer base, and employees. As part of this acquisition, the Defendant's employment was transferred to the Plaintiff.

[8] Between 2014 and 2021, the Defendant was given salary increments and was redesignated to "MKT - Senior Executive (Grade 6)" on 1 August 2021, as reflected in the annual appraisal letters issued between 2014 and 2021.

[9] It is pertinent to note that on 1 July 2021, the Plaintiff issued a revised Employee Handbook, accompanied by a memorandum from the Plaintiff's then CEO to all employees.

[10] Thereafter, on Friday 6 August 2021, the Defendant tendered her notice of departure/resignation as a senior marketing executive of the Plaintiff company.

[11] The Plaintiff pleads that as part of the Plaintiff's standard and common practice, an exit discussion was scheduled on the next working day on 9th August 2021 for purposes of obtaining reasons for resignation and to gather feedback.

[12] The Defendant however then made payment in the sum of RM11,000.00 being two months salary in lieu of notice and this is recorded by the Plaintiff vide their letter dated 9 August 2021. [Page 47 of B], The Defendant has submitted at length as to the reasons for her resignation, but the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that in relation to the proceedings in this Suit, the issues pertaining to the reasons for the Defendant's resignation are irrelevant.

[13] It is undisputed that the Defendant left the Plaintiff on 9th August 2021 and had returned the mobile phone SIM card and left her work computer as well as a few documents at her workstation. The Defendant then immediately joined the Plaintiff's competitor, Ocular Stencil Sdn Bhd on the same day. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the director of Ocu