Nagadevan a/l Mahalingam v Millenium Medicare Services [2011] 4 MLJ 739, Court of Appeal
This case was decided after Worldwide Rota. Referred to Polygram, Petrofina and Wrigglesworth,

-All of the above cases pointed out that any form of retraint of trade is void unless it falls under the exceptions provided in s.28 Contracts Act.

Svenson Hair Center Sdn Bhd v Irene Chin Zee Ling [2008] 7 MLJ 903

The Defendant had been employed by the Plaintiff since 24 February 1999, rose through the ranks to the position of Sales Consultant in 2001 and resigned from her last held position of Centre Manager of the Petaling Jaya branch in June 2005. Throughout her employment with the Plaintiff, the Defendant executed an Employment Agreements which contained express and specific prohibitions and strictures regarding Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation and Non-Competition.

Principles:-

-The law does not debar an ex-employee from making any use of or drawing on a fund of knowledge and experience or skills that he had acquired while working for the employer.

-That would be tantamount to depriving him of his livelihood. The law only imposes on the employee a general duty to act in good faith, such as a man of average intelligence and honesty would think proper.

-Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the law also imposes an obligation on the employee not to use or disclose trade secrets or to do what he has covenanted not to do — as in the instant case.

-The plaintiff’s right in law to protection of its confidential information is premised on the contractual clause, which does not have any time limit.

-As such, reading the employment agreement as a whole, it becomes patently clear that whilst there is no general restriction on the defendant from soliciting and or competing with the plaintiff after 12 months, this does not apply to situations where such soliciting and or competition is effected through the use of the plaintiff’s confidential information.

– Referred and followed to the case of Thomas Marshall (Exports) Ltd v Guinle [1978] 3 All ER 193 which stated that :
The case is not one, of course, in which the company seeks to restrain the defendant from engaging in any competing work, but one in which the company merely seeks restraints in terms of what I have called the soliciting order and the breach of confidence order.

Advertisements