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

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们