Azizan Md Arshad J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

[1]This is a judgment after full trial. A full trial was conducted on 06.03.2024, 12.03.2024, 19.06.2024 and 20.06.2024. The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “OSRAM”) claim against the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Michelle”) with costs on 23.04.2025.

[2]The Plaintiff has filed an appeal against this decision. The parties in this judgment will be referred to as they were in the High Court.

[3]The Plaintiffs company specializes in the manufacturing of electronic components and semiconductor-based lighting products, commonly referred to as LEDs.

[4]The Defendant was employed at OSRAM from 14 October 1991 as an Executive Assistant until her termination due to redundancy on 30 September 2015

[5]The last position she held in the company was as Executive Assistant in the Treasury & Commercial Administration Department, from January 2010 until her termination due to redundancy on 30 September 2015. She had been employed by the Plaintiff company since 14 October 1991.

[6]The Defendant’s final role within the company, held from January 2010 to September 2015, was as Director of Treasury & Commercial Administration, where she was responsible for a range of financial and administrative functions.

[7]The Defendant challenged her termination at the Industrial Court, alleging that it was an unlawful dismissal disguised as a redundancy. In support of her claim, she submitted the ‘Claimant’s Bundle of Documents’ on 6 March 2017 and the ‘Claimant’s Supplementary Bundle of Documents’ on 5 July 2017 to the Industrial Court, and served copies on the Plaintiff’s legal counsel. It is not in dispute that the Defendant had possession of the impugned documents and used them in the proceedings before the Industrial Court.

[8]On 29.05.2019, the Industrial Court delivered a ruling dismissing the Defendant’s claim. Undeterred, the defendant sought leave to initiate judicial review proceedings to annul the award through Judicial Review Application PA-25-51-08/2019, which was granted on 19.12.2019. The affidavit supporting the application included the aforementioned bundles of documents, which contained the disputed documents (the impugned documents).

[9]The company contended that the impugned documents were used by the Defendant in breach of the terms set out in the Confidentiality Agreement. The Defendant, however, disputed this allegation and, in her affidavits filed in opposition, explained why each of the impugned documents does not fall within the meaning or scope of the Confidentiality Agreement. Accordingly, the issue raised in relation to the joinder is whether the impugned documents possess the necessary quality of confidence and fall within the ambit of the Confidentiality Agreement.

[10]This action was based on an alleged ‘breach of confidence,’ claiming that the defendant violated the ‘Employee Confidentiality & Non-Compete Agreement’ dated July 27.10. 2010. (“the confidentiality agreement”).

[11]On record, while the judicial review was ongoing, the Plaintiff initiated this action on 17.03.2020, seeking a declaration of rightful ownership of the contested documents, along with damages and both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions (notice of application was made pursuant to O 29 of the Rules of Court 2012Osram Opto Semiconductors (M) Sdn Bhd v Ooi Mei Chien @ Wei Wei Chien )

Cause Papers

[12]At the commencement of trial, the following documents were tendered and referred by both parties:

(i)Bundle of Pleadings (‘Bundle A’);

(ii)Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian B) Jilid 1 (‘Bundle B’);

(iii)Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian B) Jilid 2 (‘Bundle B1’);

(iv)Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian B) Jilid 3 (‘Bundle B2’);

(v)Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian B) Jilid 4 (‘Bundle B3’);

(vi)Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Bahagian B & C) Jilid 5 (‘Bundle B4’);

(vii)Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Dokumen Sulit) (Bahagian B) (‘Bundle B5’);

(viii)Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif (‘Bundle C1’); and

(ix)Ikatan Dokument Plaintif 2 (‘Bundle