Trident Pharm Pte Ltd v Yong Pei Pei Tracey and another
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Choo Han Teck J |
| Judgment Date | 03 April 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] SGHC 59 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Hearing Date | 31 March 2014,12 February 2014,11 February 2014,13 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | Suit No 486 of 2013 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Michael Moey Chin Woon (Cheah Associates LLC) |
| Defendant Counsel | R Chandran (R Chandran & Co) |
| Subject Matter | Employment Law,Employees' duties,Employee forming intention to leave and compete with employer and taking preparatory steps,Whether duty of good faith and fidelity breached,Tort,Inducement of breach of contract,Conspiracy |
| Published date | 07 April 2014 |
This case was brought by a company that used to run a pharmacy. It recently lost its premises, and now sues its former employee, whose husband’s business took over its spot. The plaintiff’s claim is in employment law (breach of duty of fidelity) and tort (conspiracy and inducing breach of contract).
The plaintiff’s predecessor, Trident Pharm, was a wholesaler of pharmaceutical, medical and dental products. In 1997, it obtained a lease to operate a retail pharmacy in the building of the National Dental Centre of Singapore (“NDC”). The premises were leased to Trident Pharm on various conditions, including a condition that it would not charge its customers more than the prices agreed and approved by the NDC. Trident Pharm’s lease commenced in 1997, and spanned a period of three years with an option to renew for a further two years.
Trident Pharm’s extended lease expired in 2002 and it succeeded in obtaining a fresh term by tender. In the same year, the plaintiff – Trident Pharm Pte Ltd – was incorporated, and it acquired Trident Pharm and took over the running of the pharmacy.
The first defendant was employed as the plaintiff’s pharmacist in the NDC premises from April 2004 to February 2007. She managed the pharmacy. The plaintiff’s lease from 2002 was due to expire in 2007, and so in September 2006 the NDC invited tenders for a fresh lease.
On 13 October 2006, the first defendant’s husband, who is the second defendant in these proceedings, registered a sole proprietorship (“The Dental Pharm”) in his own name. He, like the first defendant, is a registered pharmacist by vocation.
There were three tenders for the new lease in the 2006 NDC tender exercise. They were from the plaintiff, the second defendant, and a company called Pharmaforte Singapore Pte Ltd (“Pharmaforte”) respectively. The important terms of the tender were:
Pharmaforte submitted a tender of $1,000 plus $300. The second defendant submitted a tender of $1,000 plus $800. The plaintiff submitted a tender of $800 only. The NDC awarded the new lease on 8 November 2006 to the second defendant, which was to commence on 15 March 2007. The first defendant resigned from the plaintiff on 5 December 2006. Hence, the plaintiff sued the first defendant for breach of her duty of fidelity, as she was still an employee of the plaintiff when the second defendant had registered The Dental Pharm (13 October 2006). When the lease was scheduled to commence, the first defendant had already resigned from the plaintiff and there was no question of breaching any non-competition clause since there was no such clause in her contract with the plaintiff. As such, the main issue before me was whether the first defendant was in breach of her duty of fidelity as an employee.
Dr Kwa Chong Teck (“Dr Kwa”), NDC’s executive director, was called on behalf of the plaintiff as a witness. He testified under cross-examination that the plaintiff’s tender of $800 was not acceptable. He added that, as between the plaintiff and Pharmaforte, the NDC would have awarded the lease to Pharmaforte if it had complied with all the other conditions. It was clear from Dr Kwa’s evidence that the second defendant was awarded the lease on merit, and that the plaintiff’s tender would not have succeeded even if the second defendant had not tendered.
There was no direct evidence before me that the first defendant had deliberately...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Total English Learning Global Pte Ltd and another v Kids Counsel Pte Ltd and another suit
...franchise agreements. A similar argument was raised in the High Court decision of Trident Pharm Pte Ltd v Yong Pei Pei Tracey and another [2014] SGHC 59, where Choo Han Teck J observed that the prices were not confidential “since every patient who purchased the plaintiff’s products would ha......