AMBER COMPOUNDING PHARMACY PTE. LTD. & Anor v PRISCILLA LIM SUK LING & 5 Ors

Facts

Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd, which compounds medical and pharmaceutical products, and Amber Laboratories Pte Ltd, which supports its business, sued in Suit No 164 of 2018, filed on 14 February 2018. They claim to have built up confidential information such as formulations, price lists and client lists. Several defendants were former employees, and the second defendant, UrbanRx Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd, incorporated on 28 April 2017, undisputedly offers highly similar services. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants copied confidential documents and used them to set up and run the second defendant, tried to solicit clients from a confidential client list and revealed confidential information to a third party.

On 14 September 2020 a consent judgment was entered under which the first defendant, Priscilla Lim Suk Ling, and the second defendant unconditionally admitted copying and breach of confidence and unauthorised use of the listed information, with damages to be assessed. In preparing for the assessment trial, the parties disagreed on whether the plaintiffs could claim both damages under Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41 and equitable damages under I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting and others [2020] 1 SLR 1130. On the court's direction, the question came before Dedar Singh Gill J for preliminary determination in Summons No 1589 of 2023.

Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff in a breach of confidence claim may plead and claim that both its wrongful gain interest and its wrongful loss interest were infringed.
2. Whether earlier High Court dicta prevent a plaintiff from claiming both forms of damages.

Holding

The court determined the preliminary question in the plaintiffs' favour, declaring that a plaintiff may plead both interests and so claim both damages under the Coco approach and equitable damages under the I-Admin approach. The court noted that it did not decide whether both interests could be claimed for the same document, as that was not argued.

Reasoning

The judge first held that no Court of Appeal authority barred the claim. In I-Admin only the wrongful loss interest was in play because no actionable use was found, and the court there recognised a degree of overlap, implying that some conduct affects both interests. Lim Oon Kuin and others v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another appeal [2022] 2 SLR 280 set out separate frameworks for each interest but did not face this question.

Second, the wrongful loss interest was recognised to fill a gap and strengthen protection of confidentiality, so allowing both remedies fits its purpose. Third, the dicta relied on by the defendants did not help them. In Writers Studio Pte Ltd v Chin Kwok Yung [2022] SGHC 205 the remark about pleading with specificity was a call to plead each interest properly, not a rule that only one may be pleaded. In Shanghai Afute Food and Beverage Management Co Ltd v Tan Swee Meng and others [2023] SGHC 34 the plaintiff had chosen one approach, and the steps set out there applied where parties elect, without excluding claims on both. The judge illustrated the point with a taker who takes several documents but is shown to have used only some: the owner may claim the gain interest for those used and the loss interest for the rest, as the two approaches protect different wrongs.

From the judgment