Youprint Productions Pte Ltd v Mak Sook Ling
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Ng Tee Tze Allen |
Judgment Date | 22 June 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGDC 131 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Hearing Date | 06 December 2021,21 February 2022,17 March 2022 |
Docket Number | District Court Suit No 688 of 2020, District Court Appeal No 20 of 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Roche Eng Keng Loon (R.E. Law LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Wong Jieh (Circular Law Chambers LLP) |
Subject Matter | Employment Law,Contract of service,Breach,Pay,Damages,Special damages |
Published date | 29 June 2022 |
The plaintiff is a company which provided printing solutions and services.1 It engaged the defendant as a Sales Executive pursuant to a Letter of Appointment dated 13 January 2016 (“
About 5 months after the defendant’s departure, the plaintiff was informed by one of its customers, AA Translink Pte Ltd, that the defendant had contacted them for business. This led to the plaintiff commencing this suit. It alleged that the defendant used its customer list to approach its customers for work in breach of her obligations under the Employment Contract. It claimed that it suffered loss as a result.
The defendant accepted that she had contacted the plaintiff’s customers. However, she denied that she breached of her obligations to the plaintiff or that the plaintiff suffered any loss. The defendant also made a counterclaim for various sums which she alleged was due to her.
Having heard the evidence and considered the parties’ submissions, I dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and allowed the defendant’s counterclaim to the sum of S$2,684.24. The plaintiff has appealed against my decision vis-à-vis its claim. As such, I set out my reasons below.
The plaintiff’s claim Whether the defendant breached her duties to the plaintiffIn the main, the plaintiff’s case was that the defendant had breached various express and implied duties under her Employment Contract by making use of its confidential information to solicit the business of the plaintiff’s customers.3
I was prepared to accept that this was the case on the evidence before me. First, the terms of the Employment Contract indicated that the defendant owed the plaintiff a contractual duty of confidence in respect of the customer information. Clause 10 of the Employment Contract is titled “Confidentiality Clause” and it contained,
Second, the defendant accepted that she had obtained the plaintiff’s customer’s contact details in the course of the parties’ employment relationship. In her AEIC, she stated that she stored plaintiff’s customers contact details in her handphone because “the [p]laintiff did not provide [her] with a handphone for work” which led to her using her personal handphone as her work handphone.6
Under these circumstances, I was prepared to find that the plaintiff’s customer information was confidential and that the defendant was duty bound not to use it for the benefit of the plaintiff’s competitors. Indeed, the defendant did not seriously contest this point in her Closing Submissions or Reply Submissions. Instead, she focused on:
In respect of the first issue, I find that the defendant had used the customer information to contact the plaintiff’s customers for business and this was to persuade them to give her business. In her AEIC, she explained that she started working as a self-employed freelancer doing printing work after leaving the plaintiff. To that end, she registered as a sole proprietor under the name Inkgraphic Print and started outsourcing work to Superlink Holdings Pte Ltd.7 In this context, the defendant sent the following messages:
Hi Monkey Meng, Jocelyn here, i hav left Youprint since May n I now work outdoor sales at Superlink Holdings Pte Ltd, if u got any printing or installation job can look for me to quote yea [emoticon]
My email address: …
www.superlink.com.sg
Thank u very much [emoticon]
Hi Jerry, Jocelyn here, do let me know if you need any large format printing or installation, digital printing such as flyer, brochure, etc …
Email address: …
Website: www.superlink.com.sg
Thank you and wish you have a nice day!! [emoticon]
For completeness, I note also that Clause 12.1.2 of the Employment Contract prohibited the defendant from “solicit[ing] or entic[ing] away from [the plaintiff] the custom of any person … who shall at the time of solicitation or enticement have been a customer [or] client … of the [plaintiff] … in any time within the preceding 24 months” for a period of one year from the termination of her employment.13 However, as this provision was not relied on by the plaintiff, I make no comment on the same.
Remedies sought by the plaintiffIn its Statement of Claim, the plaintiff sought damages for the alleged loss and damage that it suffered.14
It is trite that generic pleas for damages relate to normal compensatory damages, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving its case. However, the plaintiff did not discharge its burden. Even though it called two witnesses to testify on its behalf, neither advanced the plaintiff’s case:
Under these circumstances, the plaintiff would have been awarded nominal damages at the most. Indeed, the defendant argued strongly that that the plaintiff had suffered no loss.19
Possibly due to this, the plaintiff did not pursue its claim for normal compensatory damages in its Reply Submissions. No attempt was made at rebutting the defendant’s submission that the plaintiff suffered no loss. Instead, the plaintiff sought an account of profits. In support, the plaintiff made the bare assertion “that the Defendant had indeed gained benefit from the breach”,20 referred to the House of Lords decision in
In my judgment, the plaintiff’s claim for an account of profits must fail for want of pleading. There was little doubt that an account of profits for breach of contract is a form of “special damages” which needs to be expressly pleaded:
First, facts warranting the grant of special damages are not those that the law will presume to be the natural, direct or probable consequences of the action complained of. They do
not follow from the action complained of in the ordinary course . Second, and as a corollary to the first reason,they are exceptional character. (emphasis mine)
Remedies are the law’s response to a wrong (or, more precisely, to a cause of action). When,
exceptionally , a just response to a breach of contract so requires, the court should be able to grant the discretionary remedy of requiring a defendant to account to the plaintiff for the benefits he has received from his breach of contract.(emphasis mine)
Pleading issues aside, it was also not clear why the plaintiff could not obtain ordinary compensatory damages save that it had not adduced sufficient evidence. It stated the following at [21] of its Reply...
To continue reading
Request your trial