A confidentiality order's necessity must be justified in protecting substantial commercial interests, which was not met by the plaintiffs as the information was widely shared and used by defendants.

A. Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs filed an application ("Plaintiffs' Application") to seek an order for identified documents and information (collectively, the "Information") to be treated in the manner as detailed in the Plaintiffs' Application. The Information is in exhibits "MH-37" and "MH-38" of the affidavit in support of the plaintiffs' application for an injunction ("Plaintiffs' Injunction Application").

[2] After considering the evidence before the court and hearing counsel's submissions, the court dismissed the Plaintiffs' Application. These are the grounds of the court's decision.

B. Background Facts

The Plaintiffs' Appointments As Agents Under The 4th Defendant

[3] The 2nd plaintiff is a shareholder and director of the 1st plaintiff. The plaintiffs are former takaful agents under the 4th defendant. They were appointed by way of the following agreements:

a. An agency agreement dated 18 December 2019, pursuant to which the 2nd plaintiff was appointed as an agent under the 4th defendant, responsible to promote and procure customers for the 4th defendant's takaful products;

b. An agency leader agreement dated 18 December 2019, pursuant to which the 2nd plaintiff was appointed as an agency leader, responsible for the recruitment, training and supervision of agents under the 4th defendant; and

c. An agency leader corporation agreement dated 19 December 2019, pursuant to which the 1st plaintiff was appointed as an agency leader corporation under the 4th defendant ("Caliph ALC"), responsible to perform services for the 4th defendant, including to recruit agents, and to develop and supervise agents under Caliph ALC.

The ALC System

[4] The 1st defendant operates a software-as-a-service centre called the "Agency Leader Corporation Management Centre", which provides an insurance / takaful agency management computer system and related support services ("ALC System").

[5] On 1 January 2022, the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into a subscription agreement, pursuant to which the 1st plaintiff agreed to subscribe to and utilise the ALC System ("Subscription Agreement") for Caliph ALC.

[6] The ALC System operates by way of a web portal that presents information on commission payments to the 4th defendant's agents under Caliph ALC. The system works in the following manner:

a. The 4th defendant provides the 1st defendant with monthly commission data for takaful products sold by agents under Caliph ALC;

b. The 1st defendant calculates the monthly commissions due to these agents using the ALC System, based on the 1st plaintiff's allocation; and

c. The 1st plaintiff then facilitates the payments of these commissions to the agents.

The data and collection of information setting out the remuneration allocated to be paid to agents under Caliph ALC are referred to as the "Commission Allocation".

[7] For the purpose of the Commission Allocation, the ALC System records the agents' hierarchy and positions in the agency structure of Caliph ALC ("Agent Database").

The Plaintiffs' Resignations

[8] The 4th defendant claimed that in May 2023, it discovered that the 2nd plaintiff had recruited agents for and engaged in Sun Life Malaysia Takaful Berhad's ("Sun Life"