Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

BREACH OF CONTRACT, EQUITY AND FIDUCIARY DUTY – DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Often business owners find themselves vulnerable when dealing with employees who had turned rogue and took confidential information from the company. What are the legal protection against these employees?

What constitutes confidential information?

  • It means information which any reasonable employee would recognise as secret to his employer’s business.
  • Generally, the following categories are identified as confidential information:
  • Specifications and formulas, right material to apply to get certain industrial output, customer’s list, pricing and design;
  • List of customer names;
  • Technology and trade secrets;
  • Schedules of information including marketing pricing and sales information, technical information of a operating system, pricing and cost;
  • List of prices negotiated with and quoted by the suppliers, confidential correspondence, purchase order and invoice; and
  • Emails, list of customer database, list of affiliates, business plans etc.

What are business owners’ legal rights and cause of action that can be taken against those who took confidential information?

  • Confidential information may be protected under the law of contract and common law.
  • It is protected under contract when non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) or confidential information agreement are signed. Most contract of employment contains confidential information protection clause that can be used against employees who breached the confidential clause. The cause of action is breach of contract.
  • Equity also protects confidence when information (which is deemed confidential) is received. In another words, the employer has valid cause of action in equity when reasonable recipient would have known that the information disclosed is deemed confidential.
  • An employee who disclosed confidential information can also be sued for breach of fiduciary duties.

How are losses determined in a breach of confidential information situation?

  • The losses need not be assessed by measuring the loss suffered by the claimant resulting from the breach.
  • The court may award “reasonable payment from the gain made by the defendant” from the use of confidential information.

Case in point :

  1. Karen Yap Chew Ling v Binary Group Services Bhd and another appeal [2023] 4 MLJ
  2. Wrotham Park Estate Company v Parkside Homes Ltd and others [1974] 2 All ER 321

Sorotan Terkini

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami