Case Study: Malaysian Case

914 Words4 Pages
Malaysian cases In the case SCHMIDT SCIENTIFIC SDN BHD (plantiff) V ONG HAN SUAN (defendant), the issue of the case was whether there is a breach of good faith. The deciding factor is the source of information that was sent out by the fifth defendant to the existing customers of the plaintiff. Although the defendant denied and stated that he got the information from the suppliers and customers through market information. However, the Court thinks that it is almost impossible to get such precise content of the information that the plaintiff provides. The fifth defendant also obtained the statement of certain equipment and needs of the customers when the suppliers did not make him an authorized agent. It was also believed that the first, second,…show more content…
This case was brought to High Court and the deciding factor whether the implied term, good faith is breached, is the confidentiality of the information. It is stated that information such as customer’s names, lists and detail have been legislatively known as confidential in nature and the misuse of the information is not justifiable. For example, in Schmidt Scientific Sdn Bhd v Ong Han Suan case, the names and addresses of customer and suppliers were classified as trade secrets. Another deciding factor is the source of information. Defendant argued that she did not steal the customer’s information as they can be collected directly from customers who walk into the salon. The Court thinks that it is impossible that the information obtained from plaintiff come from defendant’s own skills, knowledge and business experience. Even so, it is impossible that the information is so similar to the plaintiff’s. Duty of good faith is broken when employee copies customer’s information from employer to be used after his employment ends. The next deciding factor is, the usage of information after employment. The law did not prohibit the ex-employee to compete with his ex-employer. However, if the competing business is using the confidential information copied from the ex-employer’s company, then it is not permissible. Another deciding factor is the detriment to employer. The defendant has persuaded two staffs and two customers from plaintiff’s company to join his business. Plaintiff has lost both his staff and customers and thus, plaintiff is in detriment. Therefore, the duty of good faith have been

More about Case Study: Malaysian Case

Open Document