RAFIZUDDIN BIN RAMLY FLOWBIRD MALAYSIA SDN BHD

RAFIZUDDIN BIN RAMLY FLOWBIRD MALAYSIA SDN BHD

On the evidence (particularly contemporaneous emails, admissions and circumstantial links), the trial judge was not plainly wrong to find the defendants misused Flowbird's confidential information, conspired to injure Flowbird and that the 1st and 2nd defendants breached fiduciary duties; however the High Court's damages figure for the Harding termination was excessive and must be reduced to reflect loss of profit (sales turnover less cost of sales), varied to USD51,610.00; remainder of the judgment affirmed.

Citation
W-02(NCvC)(W)-741-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant (appeal No. 740): IEM SA; Appellant (appeal No. 741): Rafizuddin bin Ramly; Respondent / Plaintiff: Flowbird Malaysia Sdn Bhd; 1st Defendant (non Appearance in High Court): Alain Taher Osterlind
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 November 2025
Case Number
W-02(NCvC)(W)-741-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Determination on Appeal at the Court of Appeal (hearing 23 June 2025; Judgment 6 November 2025)
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part; High Court judgment otherwise affirmed
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidential Information, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy to Injure, Assessment of Damages, Injunctions, Pleading Sufficiency
Source Language
Malay/English
Equity and Trusts Company Law Tort Contract Law Civil Procedure Breach of Confidential Information Breach of Fiduciary Duty Conspiracy to Injure +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IEM SA

Appellant (appeal No. 740)

Rafizuddin bin Ramly

Appellant (appeal No. 741)

Flowbird Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Plaintiff

Alain Taher Osterlind

1st Defendant (non Appearance in High Court)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Determination on Appeal at the Court of Appeal (hearing 23 June 2025; Judgment 6 November 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the information disclosed was confidential and imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence
  2. 2 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants misused confidential information and whether the 3rd defendant received it with notice
  3. 3 Whether the conduct amounted to an unlawful conspiracy to injure Flowbird

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence (particularly contemporaneous emails, admissions and circumstantial links), the trial judge was not plainly wrong to find the defendants misused Flowbird's confidential information, conspired to injure Flowbird and that the 1st and 2nd defendants breached fiduciary duties; however the High Court's damages figure for the Harding termination was excessive and must be reduced to reflect loss of profit (sales turnover less cost of sales), varied to USD51,610.00; remainder of the judgment affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part; High Court judgment otherwise affirmed

Orders

  • Vary the High Court award for damages in respect of the Harding termination from USD253,321.30 to USD51,610.00
  • Affirm the remainder of the High Court judgment (injunctions, findings of breach of confidence, conspiracy and fiduciary breaches, and orders relating to Makassar project subject to assessment/account)