Abdul Latif Bin Mohamed Tahiar (trading as Canary Agencies) v Saeed Husain s/o Hakim Gulam Mohiudin (trading as United Limousine)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 31 January 2003
• Date: 31 January 2003
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 22 of
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Abdul Latif bin Mohammed Tahiar (trading as Canary Agencies)

Plaintiff

and

Saeed Husain s/o Hakim Gulam Mohiudin (trading as United Limousine)

Defendant

[2003] SGHC 15

MPH Rubin J

District Court Appeal No 22 of 2002

High Court

Civil Procedure–Pleadings–Amendment–Whether defect in pleadings can be cured by averments in affidavit–Employment Law–Employees' duties–Employee set up competing business whilst in employ of employer–Whether employee in breach of fiduciary duty to employer

The appellant hired out chauffeur driven cars. The respondent, whilst in the appellant's employ, secretly registered a competing business and managed to secure a contract from the appellant's existing client (the “Mercedes contract”). The respondent, some ten days before his dismissal from service by the appellant, had also sent a quotation to the same client to supply them with another chauffeur driven car (the “Combi contract”). The Combi contract was only awarded to the respondent four days after his dismissal of service by the appellant. The appellant sued the respondent for damages for breach of fiduciary duties. The district judge allowed the Mercedes contract, for the sum particularised in the Amended Statement of Claim, but disallowed the Combi claim. The appellant appealed contending that the district judge erred in not awarding him a higher sum as mentioned in the accountant's report of the appellantand that the trial judge had erred in disallowing the Combi claim.

Held, allowing the appeal in part:

(1) Defects in the pleadings cannot be cured by any averments in affidavits or closing speeches. It was correct to award damages for the Mercedes contract based on the particularised sum in the Amended Statement of Claim: at [7].

(2) The respondent sent the quotation for the Combi contract while he was still in the appellant's employ and was thus an insider with private information. Although the Combi contract was awarded four days after the respondent's dismissal of service, the terms of the contract were almost similar to the quotations sent earlier. The respondent was thus in clear breach of his employment obligations: at [11].

Gold Ores Reduction Company Limited, The v Parr [1892] 2 QB 14 (refd)

Novotel Societe D' Investissements Et D'Exploitation Hoteliers v Pernas Hotel Chain (Selangor) Bhd [1987] 1 MLJ 210 (refd)

Spedding v Fitzpatrick (1888) 38 Ch D 410 (refd)

Wessex Dairies Limited v Smith [1935] 2 KB 80 (folld)

Andrew J Hanam (Hanam & Co) for the appellant

K Anparasan (Khattar Wong & Partners) for the respondent.

MPH Rubin J

1 This appeal by the plaintiff arose from the decision of the District Judge Zainol Abeedin handed down on 8 November 2002, after a trial lasting three and a half days.

2 The background to this appeal was this. The plaintiff was engaged in the business of providing chauffeur driven cars on hire to various clients for a fixed period. Mitsubishi Corporation (“Mitsubishi”) was one of the plaintiff's customers to whom the plaintiff supplied chauffeur driven cars and had, in the event, entered into a contract to provide them with two chauffeur driven cars from 4...