Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of confidentiality

Legal area

Court

16 Oct 2024

HILTI (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. 1. ) BYTEERING SDN BHD 2. ) AZTEERING SDN BHD 3. ) THAM KUAN JIAN 4. ) SIM JONG ING 5. ) MARVIN KHO TZYY YAW 6. ) CHUA YING KERK 7. ) VINCENT ENG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-281-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-281-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to particularise the confidential information sufficiently to establish the requisite serious issue, the relief sought was overly broad and mirrored final relief against some defendants lacking clear nexus, damages were an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favoured refusal as the injunction would unduly burden defendants and potentially restrain lawful trade.
28 Aug 2024

Heineken Malaysia Berhad Lim Ai Leng

Citation

BA-22NCvC-354-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-354-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the files listed in its ID5/ID6 constituted confidential information as defined in Schedule A or that Defendant breached contractual or common law duties in a manner causing actionable loss; the documentary foundation (ID5/ID6) and the provenance of the forensic listings were not established to the court's satisfaction; accordingly plaintiff's claim dismissed and defendant's counterclaim dismissed (the employment reinstatement issue reserved to industrial tribunal).
31 Jul 2024

Indadi Utama (M) Sdn Bhd Kwah Peng Kun

Citation

BB-A52NCvC-51-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-A52NCvC-51-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to discharge its onus to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant breached contractual or fiduciary duties or that recoverable company intellectual property was lost as a result of the deletions; key documentary evidence and witnesses (notably company director Nazirah) and particulars supporting the RM500,000 loss were not produced; forensic evidence confirmed deletions but could not establish contents or causation of loss; absence of a written SOP or clear restrictive terms and consistent unchallenged testimony that laptops were routinely wiped meant no actio…
24 May 2024

NG KIM CHEONG Kuan Kong Hong

Citation

WA-22NCvC-408-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-408-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence, including surveillance and witness testimony and the circumstances of an acrimonious departure, the defendant intentionally enticed 30 clients away in breach of the agreement causing loss; the proper measure of loss is annual fees for a reasonable period, fixed at three years; defendant's counterclaim for defamation and breach of confidentiality failed and is dismissed.
24 Jan 2024

PRESGO GATEWAYS SDN BHD AIM-FORCE SOFTWARE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-577-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-577-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The confidentiality clauses in the Software Agreements comprehensively and expressly regulate confidentiality leaving no room for the Plaintiff's proposed implied term; the proposed share sale is an act of the Defendant's shareholder over which the Defendant has no control; shareholders (including a transferee) do not automatically gain access to management confidential information and directors' power under s106(1)(b) is discretionary and cannot be commandeered by the court to protect a third party absent exceptional evidence of likely breach; accordingly the Plaintiff failed to establish en…
21 Dec 2023

1. ) MOMENTUM AUTOPARTS SDN BHD 2. ) WONG LI LIAN 1. ) TOH GIM HEOK 2. ) TAN THIAM ENG

Citation

WA-22NCvC-526-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-526-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the available evidence that there were bona fide serious issues to be tried regarding misuse of confidential information and actions likely to harm the Plaintiffs' business, the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo, and damages would be inadequate or difficult to quantify; accordingly an interim injunction was granted against the first defendant but dismissed against the second defendant for lack of evidence of involvement.
30 Aug 2023

1. ) NATIONAL FEEDLOT CORPORATION SDN BHD (P-1) 2. ) AGROSCIENCE INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 3. ) NATIONAL MEAT & LIVESTOCK CORPORATION SDN BHD (P-2) 4. ) REAL FOOD COMPANY SDN BHD (P-4) 5. ) Dato' Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Bin Ismail (P5) PUBLIC BANK B

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1561-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1561-08/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On appeal the Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' claim on liability: contemporaneous IT logs, BDS/CICS/WINDOWS logs and CCTV/DVR evidence together with the bank's internal disciplinary process showed employee Johari accessed and printed plaintiffs' CP-BS using a senior officer's user ID and removed the printouts; the impugned documents originated from the Bank and the Bank failed to prevent unauthorized extraction and disclosure thus breaching the implied contractual duty of confidentiality; liability on that basis is established though plaintiffs failed to prove s…
24 Aug 2023

1. ) LEE YAN CHWAN 2. ) Ho Yeok Public Islamic Bank Berhad

Citation

WA-22NCvC-753-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-753-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The statement of claim failed to plead material facts and particulars linking the bank to the alleged leak; mere assumption that the bank leaked data is insufficient to constitute a cause of action and proceeding would embarrass and prejudice the defendant and amount to an abuse of process, therefore the claim is struck out under Order 18 r19.
12 May 2022

POH BEE KUAN HEALTH4U SOLUTIONS SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCvC-754-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-754-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the value of the shares formed part of the plaintiff's remuneration as admitted by the defendant in correspondence; the defendant failed to prove dissemination of confidential information to third parties and thus failed to establish a contractual forfeiture; consequently the plaintiff is entitled to the share value and the defendant's counterclaim fails.
9 Feb 2021

Ocean Masters Logistics Sdn Bhd Zam Azimah Ghazilli

Citation

B52NCVC-280-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

B52NCVC-280-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Defendant admitted communications with the identified third party and WhatsApp exhibits showed an agreement to provide confidential Daily Sales Reports; those admissions and exhibits raised factual and legal issues (whether clause 8.1 was breached) that are not plainly and obviously unsustainable, therefore the strike out under Order 18 r19 was inappropriate and the application was dismissed with costs.