Gan Hup Lee (1999) Pte Ltd v Tee Ching Ching and others

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeSalina Bte Ishak
Judgment Date08 December 2017
Neutral Citation[2017] SGDC 328
CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberDistrict Court Suit No. 528 of 2017, DC/SUM 2785/2017 & DC/SUM 2722/2017
Year2017
Published date31 August 2018
Hearing Date04 October 2017
Plaintiff CounselMr. Lee Chiat Jin, Jeffrey & Ms. Amanda Lim (Lee Chai & Boon LLP)
Defendant CounselMr Che Wei Chin (Covenant Chambers LLC)
Subject MatterCivil Contempt,Discharge of Committal Order,Enforcement of Committal Order
Citation[2017] SGDC 328
District Judge Salina Bte Ishak: Introduction

The Defendants in DC Suit No 528 of 2017 had filed two appeals in HC/DCA 21/2107 and HC/DCA 22/2107 against my decision to dismiss their application to discharge the Committal Order in DC/SUM 2785/2017 as well as my decision to allow the Plaintiff’s application to enforce the said Committal Order in DC/SUM 2722/2017. As there was an overlap in respect of both applications and they were heard on the same day on 4 October 2017, I shall provide the reasons for my decision in respect of both applications in this judgment.

Background The Parties

The Plaintiff, Gan Hup Lee (1999) Pte Ltd (“GHL”), is a Singapore company in the business of importing, sale, distribution and supplying of raw rice and raw rice products and research, development and production of flavoured rice.

The First Defendant, Madam Tee Ching Ching, who is presently a housewife (according to the Defendants’ case), is an ex-employee of the Plaintiff who had started work for the Plaintiff as an Administrative Clerk on 16 February 2001 and rose through the ranks of a Senior Sales Manager when she left the Plaintiff’s employment on 15 August 2016. The Second Defendant, Mr Eyu Chin San, is a director and shareholder of the Third Defendant company, Sunrise Food Pte Ltd. He is also the First Defendant’s husband. The Third Defendant company, Sunrise Food Pte Ltd (“Sunrise”), was incorporated on 3 May 2016 and has its principal business listed as General Wholesale Trade (including general importers and exporters). Its primary business involves the selling groceries and daily necessities to various retailers who are mainly in the food business.

DC Suit No 528 of 2017

On 24 February 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim in DC Suit No 528 of 2017 for inter alia, the following injunctive relief namely: the First Defendant to be restrained from acting in breach of her terms of employment with the Plaintiff including the Restrictive Covenant and the Second and the Third Defendants to be restrained them for continuing to employ, use the services and/or engage the assistance of the First Defendant in breach of the First Defendant’s terms of employment including the Restrictive Covenant; the First, Second and Third Defendants to be restrained whether by themselves, their servants, agents or jointly with another or on behalf of any person, entity, firm or company or otherwise howsoever -- from selling, supplying and/or distributing (whether or not for consideration) raw rice and carrying on a business in any manner whatsoever which have howsoever involved or would involve the use of, is based on or would be based on (whether in whole or in part) and/or contains or would contain the Plaintiff’s Confidential Information/ Trade Secrets and from disclosing, divulging, using, misusing, dealing or otherwise making use of in any way the Confidential Information / Trade Secrets or any part thereof, which is acquired by her during the course of her employment by the Plaintiff, including disclosing or divulging the Confidential Information/Trade Secrets to Quay Holdings Pte Ltd. as well as a claim for damages namely: against the First Defendant for breach of contract and/or breach of fiduciary duties and/or breach of implied duty of fidelity, trust and confidence and/or breach of duty of confidence by procuring the Confidential Information/Trade Secrets and disclosing it to third parties (including the Second and Third Defendants); against the Second and Third Defendants for breach of equitable duties of confidence through the wrongful use of Confidential Information/Trade Secrets and against the First, Second and Third Defendants or against any of them, for conspiracy to cause wrongful harm by unlawful means.

Procedural History The Defendants’ Undertaking

On 3 March 2017, the Plaintiff applied for an Interim Injunction in DC/SUM 709/2017 and the Defendants gave an Undertaking to the Court in response to this application pending the hearing for the interim injunction. The Defendants’ Undertaking required them to, inter alia, do the following: In respect of Prayers 4 of the Summons for Injunction (DC/SUM 709/2017), the Defendants shall not approach, sell, supply and/or distribute raw rice to any of the Plaintiff’s customers, whereby: By close of business on 6 March 2017 (Monday), the Plaintiff’s Counsel would provide the Defendants’ Counsel with the list of all of the Plaintiff’s customers (the “Plaintiff’s Customer List”) which the Defendant cannot approach, sell, supply and/or distribute raw rice to; The Defendants’ Counsel shall not disclose the Plaintiff’s Customer List to any of the Defendants. Before approaching, selling, supplying and/or distributing raw rice to any customer, the Defendants are to check with the Defendants’ Counsel as to whether that customer is in the Plaintiff’s Customer List. If the customer is in the Plaintiff’s Customer List, the Defendants shall be precluded from approaching, selling, supplying and/or distributing raw rice to that customer;1; and By 24 March 2017 (Friday), the Second and Third Defendants to deliver up copies of all correspondence and documents relating to their existing customers (including emails, purchase orders and delivery orders) to the Plaintiff2.

The Committal Order

The Plaintiff subsequently applied for a Committal Order on 3 May 2017 after obtaining the requisite leave of Court, on the grounds of the Defendants failure to comply with their Undertaking and intentionally abusing the Court process pursuant to Order 52 Rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court (“The Rules”).

After an inter partes hearing and a consideration of the various affidavits filed by both parties, on 21 July 2017 as I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendants failed to comply with the terms of the Defendants’ Undertaking given on 3 March 2017, I found that the Defendants were in contempt of Court.

Thereafter, I had made the following orders namely: That TEE CHING CHING…, the 1st Defendant in this proceeding, be committed to Changi Women's Prison for a period of 3 days for contempt of Court on the grounds set out below and in the Supporting Statement required under Order 52 Rule 2(2) of the Rules of Court filed on 26 April 2017; That EYU CHIN SAN…, the 2nd Defendant in this proceeding, be committed to Changi Prison for a period of 3 days for contempt of Court on the grounds set out below and in the Supporting Statement required under Order 52 Rule 2(2) of the Rules of Court filed on 26 April 2017; That EYU CHIN SAN…, the Director of the 3rd Defendant in this proceeding, be committed to Changi Prison for a period of 3 days for contempt of Court on the grounds set out below and in the Supporting Statement required under Order 52 Rule 2(2) of the Rules of Court filed on 26 April 2017; In respect of Mdm Tee Ching Ching, the 1st Defendant who is present in Court, the Order of Court made herein is suspended provided that Mdm Tee Ching Ching complies with the Defendants Undertaking To Court dated 3 March 2017 by filing an affidavit to fully explain the following: all instances of the Defendants approaching, selling, supplying and/or distributing raw rice to any customers from 3 March 2017 onwards; before approaching, selling, supplying and/or distributing raw rice to any customers from 3 March 2017 onwards, whether the Defendants had checked with the Defendants' solicitors as to whether that customer was on the Plaintiff's Customer List; the 1st Defendant's actions relating to the diversion of calls and messages from her phone (HP No. xxx) to another number and/or device, including such actions taken for the diversion of calls and messages during the meeting at the Defendants' solicitors' office on 6 March 2017 (where the 1st Defendant was to surrender her phone and other agreed items to the Defendants' solicitors). The Affidavit to be filed within 2 weeks from this Order i.e. by 4 August 2017. If Mdm Tee Ching Ching fails to comply with the above terms on which the Committal Order which is suspended, the Applicant shall be at liberty to apply inter partes to the Court to consider whether the Committal Order should be enforced or discharged. The Affidavit to be filed within 2 weeks from this Order i.e. by 4 August 2017. If Mdm Tee Ching Ching fails to comply with the above terms on which the Committal Order which is suspended, the Applicant shall be at liberty to apply inter partes to the Court to consider whether the Committal Order should be enforced or discharged. That the Defendants comply with the terms of the Defendants' Undertaking dated 3 March 2017; In respect of Mr Eyu Chin San, the 2nd Defendant and Director of the 3rd Defendant who is not present in Court, the Order of Court made herein is to be extracted and served personally on Mr Eyu Chin San with the affidavit of service to be filed within 1 week of such service. Execution of the Order made herein is stayed on the following term that he applies to Court to discharge the said Order within 2 weeks of service of the Order of Court. In the event that he fails to apply to discharge the Order within the time stipulated, the Applicant shall be at liberty to apply inter partes to the Court to consider whether the Committal Order should be enforced or discharged; The costs of this application and the application for leave for committal proceedings, be fixed at $2,000 plus reasonable disbursements for the filing of documents to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. When I gave this Committal Order, I was mindful that such an order is a measure of last resort3 to be made when the Court is faced with a recalcitrant and obstructive litigant who is in continuous breach of a court order. I gave a suspended Committal Order on the terms as reflected above pursuant to Order 52 Rule 6(1) of the Rules as I had wanted to give the Defendants a last...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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