Buckman Laboratories (Asia) Pte Ltd v Lee Wei Hoong

JudgeJudith Prakash J
Judgment Date20 January 1999
Neutral Citation[1999] SGHC 17
Citation[1999] SGHC 17
Defendant CounselAndre Yeap and Lim Wee Ming (Allen & Gledhill)
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselKhoo Kah Ho and Fabian Teo (Fabian & Khoo)
Date20 January 1999
Docket NumberSuit No 1476 of 1998 (Summons in
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterWhether clause exist to protect legitimate interests or to inhibit competition,Whether to grant injunction on balance of convenience even if damages not an adequate remedy,Validity of clause,Injunctions,Whether clause reasonable in its geographical restraint,Restraint of trade,Contract,Whether serious question to be tried,Whether damages an adequate remedy,Illegality and public policy,Civil Procedure
Judgment:

JUDITH PRAKASH J

The plaintiff company is a member of a group of companies headed by Buckman Laboratories International Inc and Bulab Holdings Inc (collectively referred to as `the Buckman Group`) which were established in 1945 as manufacturers of speciality chemicals. The defendant is a young Singaporean, born in 1970, who was employed by the plaintiffs between March 1994 and May 1998. By this action, the plaintiffs seek to injunct the defendant from working with their competitors and from disclosing the plaintiffs` confidential information to such competitors.

2.The action was commenced on 28 August 1998. By an exparte summons filed the same day, the plaintiffs asked for, inter alia, the following orders: (1). the defendant terminate his employment with and refrain from being employed by or providing services to ECC International Pte Ltd or any other competitor of the plaintiffs (`competitor` as defined in cl 1.2 of the Contract of Employment dated 15 September 1994 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant) until 6 May 1999;

(2). the defendant, whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever refrain from using and/or disclosing any confidential information acquired by the defendant during the course of his employment by the plaintiffs and/or any trade secrets of the plaintiffs including (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) all planning and other confidential information relating to the nature, conduct, financing, products, services, markets, employees or customers of any business of the plaintiff or Bulab Holdings Inc, or any firm, company or organisation directly or indirectly controlled by, or is under common control with Bulab Holdings Inc;

(3). the defendant, as well as his servants and agents, to deliver forthwith to the plaintiffs all correspondence and other documents (including but not limited to correspondence and documents containing Proprietary Information - as defined in cl 1.5 of the Contract of Employment dated 15 September 1994 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant) and any other property belonging to the plaintiffs which is in his or his servant`s or agent`s possession, custody or power and including all copies thereof.

3.The plaintiffs` application was heard on an urgent basis the same day before His Honour Justice Lai Kew Chai. The learned judge granted the plaintiffs an order in terms of sub-para (3) above but ordered that the plaintiffs` summons-in-chambers be served on the defendant and that the other prayers of the said summons including the two prayers asking for injunctive relief be heard inter partes. Pursuant to this order, the plaintiffs` application came before me for hearing on 29 October 1998 and counsel appeared for both parties. I dismissed the application. The plaintiffs have appealed.

Background

4. (i) The plaintiffs

According to the affidavit filed by Mr Dennis L Dalton, the managing director of the plaintiff company, the Buckman Group has the ability to create and manufacture chemicals to control the growth of micro-organisms. It provides advanced chemical treatment technologies and extensive technical service on a world-wide basis. The Buckman Group`s expertise spans a broad range of proprietary speciality chemicals which are used in many industries, for example the pulp and paper industry, the leather industry, the water treatment industry and the coating industry.

5.The Buckman Group has had a commercial presence in Asia as a speciality chemical supplier since 1975. In 1992, it set up the plaintiff company to be its regional technical service centre and operating headquarters for Asia. The plaintiffs also manufacture and warehouse products in Singapore. They are supported by technical specialists and analytical chemists. Geographically, the plaintiffs are responsible for Southeast and Southwest Asia and Mainland China. They have been serving customers in various industries in Singapore, China, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Brunei, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. They have also been attempting to establish a permanent presence in other Southeast Asian countries as well as in the Middle East.

6.The plaintiffs` laboratories in Singapore create and evaluate new products for production and sale to its customers in the region. Their expenditure on research and development is substantial. Occasionally, the plaintiffs contract with third parties to mix the proprietary raw materials into finished proprietary products on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs regard this information as highly confidential and secret and the third parties` contractors are not informed of the quantity nor the type of raw materials used to manufacture the finished products.

7.The plaintiffs also procure purchase-for-resale (PFR) products from other chemical companies which they re-label and sell under different names and identities to the plaintiffs` customers. These PFR products are sold as the plaintiffs` product although they are manufactured by other chemical companies. The sources of these PFR products as well as their new names are treated by the plaintiffs as secret information as they consider that divulging the same will enable their competitors to obtain these products and sell them to the plaintiffs` customers.

8.According to the plaintiffs, there are only three companies which are in direct competition with the Buckman Group on a world-wide basis in the pulp and paper industry. These are Nalco Chemical Company, Betzdearborn and ECC Overseas Investments Ltd, a United Kingdom company which has a subsidiary in Singapore named ECC International Pte Ltd (`ECC`). ECC specialises in water management technology and speciality chemical applications.

9. (ii) The defendant

The defendant graduated from the Simon Fraser University, Canada, in 1991 with a bachelor of science degree, having majored in chemistry. He then returned to Singapore and was enlisted for national service. After completing national service in November 1993, the defendant sought employment and in March 1994 he was offered his first job by the plaintiffs. They hired him as a `Technical Services Specialist` at a salary of $1,800 per month.

10.The defendant was given an employment contract by the plaintiffs at about the time he started working for them, but he did not sign it immediately as he was not happy with the terms. Eventually, he signed the agreement in September 1994, about five months after he started his employment with the plaintiffs. He was told that it was a standard contract used for all the plaintiffs` employees irrespective of their responsibilities and functions in the company. At that time the plaintiffs had about four local employees and four expatriate employees. The defendant believes that the terms of employment for the local employees who held the posts of administration officer, logistics and warehouse officer, finance manager and technical cum laboratory manager, all contained substantially the same if not identical terms as those in the defendant`s contract.

11. (iii) The defendant`s employment

According to the defendant, as a technical service specialist with the plaintiffs, his job included the testing and analysis of the plaintiffs` chemical products to ascertain: (a). which product was suitable for use against micro-organisms, deposits control, foaming problems or other conditions present in a customer`s site and products; and

(b). whether a new product formulated by the plaintiffs was better than an existing product in treating the conditions present at the customer`s site and products.

These tests were carried out by using the plaintiffs` products on samples of the customers` products in the laboratory in Singapore or at the customers` site to deal with the specific site conditions. Over his four years with the plaintiffs, the defendant estimated that he would have carried out hundreds of such tests on the plaintiffs` products. The plaintiffs have about ten categories of products and at least 50 different products in each category.

12.The defendant asserted that during his first two years with the plaintiffs he was mostly working in the laboratory and that it was only his last year with them that he spent more time in the field at the customers` sites. He was never involved in the formulation of the chemicals which make up the plaintiffs` products.

13.There is a dispute over the scope of the work which the defendant carried out. The plaintiffs` description of this work is much more expansive than the defendant`s. They say that he had full access to active knowledge of the plaintiffs` proprietary and confidential information and sensitive data bases. Further, he conducted and presented many research and development reports on various newly developed bio-science products. These are detailed analytical reports on the effectiveness of various novel and active ingredient combinations vis--vis different bacteria and fungus collected from the plaintiffs` customers` production lines and plants as well as on the strength and weaknesses of the Buckman Group`s existing proprietary products. The plaintiffs assert that the defendant is aware of the specific composition of each and every proprietary chemical product tested. The plaintiffs also say that the defendant had access to the names and contact information of the chemical companies which supply the plaintiffs with PFR products; he knew the names and identity of such products as well as the names and labels given to them when they were subsequently sold by the plaintiffs as the latter`s own products.

14.The defendant`s basic answer to the plaintiffs` assertions about his knowledge is that he conducted hundreds of tests during his employment with them and it would be impossible to remember the results of such tests. Further, the tests he conducted involved the checking of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Stratech Systems Ltd v Nyam Chiu Shin (alias Yan Qiuxin) and Others
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 28 March 2005
    ...of inducing them to breach their contracts with Stratech: at [44], [48] to [50]. Buckman Laboratories (Asia) Pte Ltd v Lee Wei Hoong [1999] 1 SLR (R) 205; [1999] 3 SLR 333 (folld) De Francesco v Barnum (1890) LR 45 Ch D 430 (folld) Diamond Stylus Co Ltd v Bauden Precision Diamonds Ltd [1973......
  • MRA INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD vs SPC DIATECH, LLC
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 28 May 2021
    ...153 BRE Sdn Bhd & Ors v Tun Datuk Patinggi Hj Abdul Rahman Ya' Kub [2005] 3 MLJ 485 Buckman Laboratories (Asia) Pte Ltd v Lee Wei Hoong [1999] 3 SLR 333 Bumi Armada Navigation Sdn Bhd v. Mirza Marine Sdn Bhd [2015] 5 CLJ 652 Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 339 CGU Insurance Bhd v Asean S......
  • Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F Man International (S) Pte Ltd) v Wong Bark Chuan David
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 29 November 2007
    ...in Paragraph B above. 147 A similar clause was before the Singapore High Court in Buckman Laboratories (Asia) Pte Ltd v Lee Wei Hoong [1999] 3 SLR 333. In that case, the provision under consideration read as 12.6 The Employee expressly acknowledges that the periods of one year in the above ......
  • Wong Bark Chuan David v Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 January 2007
    ...the restrictive covenant in question was an unreasonable restraint of trade. 152 In Buckman Laboratories (Asia) Pte Ltd v Lee Wei Hoong [1999] 3 SLR 333 (“Buckman”), there was also a similar provision under which the employee acknowledged that the restrictive covenants were reasonably neces......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT