Singapore's High Court examines manager's fiduciary obligations
The High Court of Singapore dealt with a case involving an employment agency's claims against its former general manager and several other parties for various breaches of duties and obligations.
The case delved into the nature of his fiduciary duties, confidentiality obligations, and the requirements for establishing an unlawful means conspiracy.
Amid allegations of betrayal and competition, the court examined the former general manager's involvement in setting up a rival employment agency while still employed by its former employer.
Background
The plaintiffs, Swift Maids Pte Ltd and Swift Maids Resources Pte Ltd (collectively referred to as "Swift Maids"), are foreign domestic worker (FDW) employment agencies.
They brought an action against their former general manager, Cheong Yi Qiang, for breach of his employment contract, breach of confidentiality obligations, and breach of fiduciary duties.
The plaintiffs also claimed against the other defendants for their alleged dishonest assistance of Cheong's breach of fiduciary duties and unlawful means conspiracy.
Breaches of employment contract
According to records, Cheong’s new agencies, Recruitbee Employment Pte Ltd and Recruitbee Helpers Pte (collectively referred to as “Recruitbee”), are engaged in the same line of business as Swift Maids, namely as FDW employment agencies.
The plaintiffs said that Cheong “had breached the express terms spelling out his duties under his employment contract with Swift Maids Pte Ltd,” and that “Cheong had also breached an implied contractual term to serve with good faith and fidelity.”
“The premise of the plaintiffs’ case is that Cheong had been centrally involved in the setting up and operations of Recruitbee Employment, even while he was still working for the plaintiffs,” the court said.
They said that since Cheong “was involved in Recruitbee Employment from its inception, and he continued to be involved after he resigned from Swift Maids, the inference must be that he was invested in growing Recruitbee’s business.”
Acting behind employer’s back?
The court held that Cheong did not owe fiduciary duties to Swift Maids, as he did not have the ability to unilaterally exercise power or discretion to affect Swift Maids' legal or practical interests.
The court also found insufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants had conspired to injure Swift Maids by diverting or soliciting businesses and employees away from Swift Maids through unlawful means.
The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had not proven that Cheong had misused or disclosed Swift Maids' confidential information or that the defendants had acted to target and injure Swift Maids' business interests through unlawful means.
The court emphasized that while Cheong had acted behind his employer's back and breached his employment contract, the evidence did not support the plaintiffs' wide-ranging allegations of misuse of confidential information and targeted unlawful actions by the defendants.
Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against him for breach of fiduciary duties and against the other defendants for dishonest assistance.
