MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd v Fish & Company Restaurants Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 18 October 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGCA 36 |
Published date | 05 January 2011 |
Date | 18 October 2010 |
Year | 2010 |
Hearing Date | 20 May 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Lau Kok Keng and Wendy Low Wei Ling (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Citation | [2010] SGCA 36 |
Defendant Counsel | Tony Yeo Soo Mong and Rozalynne Asmali (Drew & Napier LLC) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeals Nos 169 and 171 of 2009 |
The assessment of damages is almost always of the first importance to plaintiffs (including the plaintiff in the present proceedings). This is only natural given that a plaintiff who has been legally wronged would surely want to know how the wrong (or wrongs) is (or are) to be redressed (often, as is the case here, in monetary terms). It has also commonly been said – quite correctly, in our view – that the assessment of damages is not a mechanistic process. To be sure, there are legal rules and principles which guide the court. However, their
The Appellants also had a fallback argument: if, indeed, their breaches had caused loss to the Respondent, the Respondent (so the argument ran) was nevertheless the main author of its loss. In essence, the thrust of the Appellants’ argument is that the Respondent was already suffering from a decline in sales in any event and, hence, is not entitled to seek substantial monetary compensation (in the form of damages) from the Appellants. The Appellants say that the Respondent can (at best) claim only a relatively small amount of damages.
There is yet another – albeit more subsidiary – issue. However, even this issue sees the Appellants attempting to argue that damages should be denied to the Respondent. This relates to loss or damage that was allegedly caused to the Respondent
The result of all this is a curious compendium of both difficult issues of application as well as a difficult issue of law. In short, both particulars and universals have raised rather thorny questions that we must resolve. What began as a deceptively simple set of legal proceedings has metamorphosed into a rather complex mixture of factual and legal conundrums impacting on the issue of justice and fairness not only for the parties to the present appeals but also (in relation to the legal rules and principles centring on remoteness of damage) for future litigants as well.
It is best, in the circumstances, to begin from the beginning – in particular, with the basic factual matrix which constitutes the backdrop against which the various legal issues have arisen.
The factual background General The present appeals are against the decision made by the High Court Judge (“the Judge”) with regard to the assessment of damages in
The Respondent is Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd, the owner of a chain of seafood restaurants called “Fish & Co”. The original assessment hearing had, in fact, taken place before an Assistant Registrar (“the AR”), whose decision was appealed against by the Respondent and cross-appealed by the Appellants. As we shall see, the Judge allowed the Respondent’s appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal by the Appellants. The first appellant is MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd (“the First Appellant”), the owner of another chain of seafood restaurants called “The Manhattan Fish Market” (“MFM”) and the second appellant is Dickson Low (“Dickson”), a former employee of the Respondent.
As part of his employment contract with the Respondent, Dickson agreed that all confidential information derived during his employment would not be wilfully divulged to outside parties and competitors, and that he would not help to set up restaurants other than for the Respondent during his employment or two years after resigning from the company. Sometime after resigning from the Respondent (around 21 August 2001), Dickson was involved in and helped to set up the First Appellant’s business. The first MFM restaurant was opened in Malaysia in 2002 and subsequently more restaurants were opened in Malaysia. Following these events, on 30 March 2004, the Respondent brought proceedings against Dickson for breaching the non-competition obligations in the contract of employment by using and divulging confidential information. The Respondent alleged that Dickson copied Fish & Co’s concepts for use in the MFM restaurants. Dickson denied the allegations. However, during the course of the trial, the parties settled and recorded a settlement deed on 27 April 2005 (“the Settlement Deed”). The First Appellant and its Malaysian counterparts were also added as parties to the Settlement Deed, although they were not parties to the suit. The Respondent claimed that it required the First Appellant’s inclusion to ensure that both Dickson and the First Appellant were prevented from employing Fish & Co’s concepts. This was especially important as it was found out during the course of trial that the First Appellant was planning to open the first MFM restaurant in Singapore. The relevant sub-clauses in the Settlement Deed for our purposes read as follows:1
The four obligations will be referred to herein as “the Pans undertaking”, “the Slogans undertaking”, “the Phrases undertaking” and “the Sauces undertaking” respectively. The Respondent claimed that the four undertakings were crucial as they reflected the essence of the Fish & Co concept. The Slogans and Phrases undertakings were to take effect from 27 April 2005, while the Sauces undertaking was to take effect from 27 July 2005, with the Pans undertaking taking effect from 27 August 2005.The Parties hereby undertake to fulfill the following obligations:
- [The Appellants] undertake not to use, in the Manhattan Fish Market Restaurants around the world, within a period of four (4) months from the date of this Deed, serving pans identical and/or similar to those serving pans used in Fish & Co Restaurants.
- [The Appellants] undertake not to use any slogans and/or jingles identical to or confusingly similar to that used by [the Respondent] …
- ...
- [The Appellants] undertake not to use the words and/or phrases more particularly described in Schedule 3 …
- [The Appellants] undertake, within a period of three (3) months from this Deed, to use a completely different garlic lemon butter sauce, sauce used in the dish known as “Garlic Lemon Mussels” … (collectively known as “the MFM Sauces”) … from the Garlic Lemon Butter Sauce and Lemon Butter Sauces used in Fish & Co Restaurants (“the O.B. Sauces”).
...
Subsequently, on 20 May 2005, the First Appellant began operations at Plaza Singapura, which was just 0.28 km away from the Respondent’s Fish & Co Glass House outlet situated at Penang Road. The Respondent alleged that despite the undertakings in the Settlement Deed, the Appellants had almost immediately breached cl 3 of the Settlement Deed by:
On 20 September 2005, the Respondent brought proceedings against the Appellants for the above breaches. The Respondent claimed an injunction as well as damages pursuant to the alleged breaches of the Settlement Deed. The claim was (as mentioned) premised on the breaches of the Settlement Deed, and not for passing off or breach of confidentiality.
Around 8 November 2005, MFM discontinued the use of the disputed slogan and phrases.
On the first day of trial,
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Out of the Box Pte Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte Ltd
...incurred in relation to Groovy and Catalyst. In MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd and another v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd and another appeal [2011] 1 SLR 150 (“MFM Restaurants”), the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the two limbs set out in Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 (“Hadley v Baxendale......
-
Swiss Butchery Pte Ltd v Huber Ernst
...after he ceased to be Managing Director and a Director of SB. Using the case of MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd[2011] 1 SLR 150 (‘MFM’) as a guide, the defendant's expert was of the view that the post-breach period should be 12 months. As the continuing effect would ......
-
Out of the Box Pte Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte Ltd
...The Achilleas (HL) in its subsequent decision in MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd and another v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd and another appeal [2011] 1 SLR 150 (“MFM Restaurants”). After once again undertaking an extensive review of existing case law and academic commentaries, we rejected Lord Hof......
-
Foo Jong Peng v Phua Kiah Mai
...v Seamar Trading and Commerce Inc; The Reborn [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 1 (refd) MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 150 (refd) Miscela Ltd v Coffee Republic Retail Ltd [2011] EWHC 1637 (QB) (refd) Ng Giap Hon v Westcomb Securities Pte Ltd [2009] 3 SLR (R) 518;......
-
CONTRACT LAW IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: UNIFORMITY OR DIVERGENCE?
...relation to the specifc context of remedies) and 748–751. 6 [2009] 1 WLR 1988. 7 [2017] AC 467. 8 [2018] 1 SLR 363. 9 [2009] 1 AC 61. 10 [2011] 1 SLR 150. 11 [2013] 2 SLR 363. 12 Based on the leading English High Court decision of Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR......
-
Contract Law
...Boong Hua [2018] 2 SLR 655 at [252], reiterating observations previously made in MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 150. 192 See para 12.146 above. 193 The respondents had been the plaintiffs at first instance, and the appellants had been the defendants: se......
-
Contract Law
...there has been a breach of contract, however, has hitherto remained open: see MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd[2011] 1 SLR 150 (‘MFM Restaurants’), noting at [53] that: ‘there is an arguable case, in principle, for the award of punitive damages in contract law … [thou......
-
WORKPLACE HARASSMENT
...27 at [21]. 110 See also Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok Poh[2013] SGHCR 27 at [31] and MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd[2011] 1 SLR 150. 111 See (accessed 1 August 2015). 112 See s 46 of the Hong Kong Sex Discrimination Ordinance (Cap 480, 1995) and s 106 of the Australian Sex......