Page 1

Page 2

Singapore Law Reports/1993/Volume 3/CHIARAPURK JACK !RS " HA# PAR $R!%H&RS I'%&R'A%I!'AL L%( A'!R A'( A'!%H&R APP&AL ) *1993+ 3 SLR ,-. ) , August 1993 19 pages /1993) 3 SLR 285 CHIARAPURK JACK & ORS v HAW PAR BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL LTD & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL COURT OF APPEAL YONG PUNG HOW CJ LAI KEW CHAI AND WARREN LH KHOO JJ CI!IL APPEAL NOS 9 AND 5" OF 1991 2 A#$#%& 1993 Tort -- Passing off by get-up -- Form of injunction to restrain passing off -- Need to specify the activity restrained Tort -- Passing off by get-up -- Damages -- Products of comparable quality -- Parties of good repute -- Loss quantifiable -- Damages adequate remedy in the circumstances Civil Procedure -- nterlocutory injunction -- !estraining misuse of allegdly confidential information -- Particulars of information must be given by party see"ing injunction -Nature of information an essential element of the cause of action and need for certainty Civil Procedure -- Particulars -- #llegations of breach of confidence in statement of claim -- Particulars must be given to support allegations -- Defendants$ right to "no% the information they are being attac"ed for using Civil Procedure -- Costs -- nterlocutory applications -- Costs usually ordered to be in the cause %0e se1on2 an2 t0ir2 appellants an2 t0e respon2ents were 1o)3oint "enturers in t0e manu4a1ture an2 2istri5ution o4 p0arma1euti1al pro2u1ts un2er t0e 4irst respon2ent6s worl2wi2e 6%iger $ran26 tra2e mar7 in Asia an2 t0e 8i22le &ast9 %0e 4irst appellant: w0o was in 0is own rig0t a manu4a1turer o4 p0arma1euti1als: was t0e 10ie4 e;e1uti"e o44i1er o4 t0e 1ompanies 4orme2 un2er t0e 3oint "enture agreement9 In 8a< 199=: s0ortl< 5e4ore t0e e;pir< o4 t0e 3oint "enture agreement: t0e appellants 5egan t0e manu4a1ture an2 2istri5ution o4 a new me2i1inal 5alm un2er t0e la5el 6>ol2en Lion S0iel269 In June 199=: t0e respon2ents 1ommen1e2 an a1tion alleging t0at? /1@ t0e new 5alm6s ma7e up was 1opie2 4rom t0at 4or t0e 6%iger $alm6: a 5alm manu4a1ture2 un2er t0e 3oint "entureA /,@ t0e new 5alm was manu4a1ture2 an2 2istri5ute2 using 1on4i2ential in4ormation parte2 5< t0e respon2ents un2er t0e terms o4 t0e 3oint "entureA an2: /3@ t0e manu4a1ture o4 t0e new 5alm was a 5rea10 o4 t0e 1ontra1tual an2 4i2u1iar< o5ligations un2er t0e 3oint "enture agreement9 %0e< also o5taine2: e; parte: interlo1utor< in3un1tions restraining t0e

Page 3

manu4a1ture an2 2istri5ution o4 t0e >LS 5alm on t0e groun2s o4 5rea10 o4 1ontra1t: 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e an2 passing o449 %0ese in3un1tions were 1ontinue2 at an inter partes 0earing an2 t0e appellants appeale2 against t0at or2er in Ci"il Appeal 'o .B o4 19919 %0e 3u2ge: w0en 1ontinuing t0e in3un1tions: or2ere2 t0at t0e 1osts o4 t0e 0earing 5e in t0e 1ause9 %0e respon2ents appeale2 against t0at or2er 4or 1osts 5< t0eir respon2ents6 noti1e in t0is appeal9 In t0eir statement o4 1laim: t0e respon2ents allege2 t0at t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess o4 an2 t0e pri1ing: 2is1ount an2 5onus goo2s stru1ture 4or 6%iger $alm6 were 1on4i2ential9 %0e appellants applie2 4or parti1ulars o4 t0e allegations9 %0e assistant registrar or2ere2 t0at t0e respon2ents 0a2 to pro"i2e most o4 t0e parti1ulars soug0t onl< a4ter 2is1o"er< an2 t0at onl< 5est parti1ulars 0a2 to 5e pro"i2e29 %0e 3u2ge)in)10am5ers ma2e no or2er on appeal an2 in Ci"il Appeal 'o 9 o4 1991: t0e appellants appeale2 against t0at or2er9 $< t0e time o4 t0e 0earing 5e4ore t0e Court o4 Appeal: t0e 3oint "enture agreement 0a2 e;pire2 an2 t0e parties agree2 t0at t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tions 5ase2 on 5rea10 o4 1ontra1t s0oul2 not 1ontinue9 H'(): allowing 5ot0 appeals an2 2ismissing t0e 1ross)appeal on 1osts?

1)

1)

1)

#0ere a part< see7s to restrain anot0er 4rom misusing allege2l< 1on4i2ential in4ormation: 0e is reCuire2 to gi"e parti1ulars o4 t0e in4ormation as t0e nature o4 t0e in4ormation was an essential element o4 t0e 1ause o4 a1tion an2 also 5e1ause t0ere was a nee2 4or 1ertaint< as to t0e a1t 5eing restraine29 Sin1e t0e respon2ents 0a2 4aile2 to parti1ulariDe w0at t0e< allege2 was 1on4i2ential a5out t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess o4 6%iger $alm6 /t0e Hig0 Court 0a2 0el2 t0at t0ere was not0ing 1on4i2ential a5out t0e pri1ing stru1ture o4 t0e 5alm an2 t0e respon2ents 0a2 not appeale2 against t0at 0ol2ing@: t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tions 5ase2 on 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e woul2 5e 2is10arge2 as no serious issue as to t0e misuse o4 1on4i2ential in4ormation 0a2 5een ma2e out9 %0e nee2 4or parti1ulariDation also applie2 to t0e main a1tion an2 a11or2ingl<: t0e respon2ents s0oul2 also pro"i2e all t0e parti1ulars soug0t o4 t0e allegations o4 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e in t0eir statement o4 1laim9 %0e reCuests 4or parti1ulars w0i10 0a2 5een 2enie2 were in1orre1tl< seen as attempts to eli1it e"i2en1e9 %0e< were proper attempts to o5tain parti1ulars o4 t0e allegation t0at t0e appellants 0a2 3ointl< a1te2 in 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e9 Eurt0er: t0ere was no reason to 2ela< t0e gi"ing o4 parti1ulars sin1e t0e respon2ents were manu4a1turing 6%iger $alm6 in t0e areas not 1o"ere2 5< t0e 3oint "enture agreement an2 woul2 7now t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess an2 t0e sales in4ormation relating to t0e 5alm9 8oreo"er: t0e< were s0are0ol2ers in t0e 3oint "enture 1ompanies9 It was also not rig0t 4or t0e appellants not to 7now t0e in4ormation t0e< were 5eing atta17e2 4or using9 An in3un1tion: w0et0er interlo1utor< or 4inal: restraining passing o44 5< get)up s0oul2 not 5e so wi2el< wor2e2 as to restrain an< 2ealing wit0 t0e su53e1t pro2u1t9 It s0oul2 ma7e 1lear t0at it onl< restrains 2ealing w0i10 2oes not 1learl< 2istinguis0 5etween t0e su53e1t pro2u1t an2 t0e pro2u1t prote1te2 5< t0e in3un1tion9

Page 4

1)

1)

1 2

(amages are an a2eCuate reme2< in a passing o44 a1tion w0ere t0e su53e1t pro2u1t is o4 1ompara5le Cualit< to t0e one 4or w0i10 prote1tion is soug0t i4 t0e parties are o4 repute an2 t0ere is no Cuestion o4 eit0er si2e meeting an awar2 o4 2amages or Cuanti4<ing its loss9 A11or2ingl<: t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tions 5ase2 on passing o44 woul2 also 5e 2is10arge29 %0e respon2ents6 1ross)appeal on 1osts woul2 5e 2ismisse2 as t0e 2e1ision 5elow 1oul2 not 5e s0own to 5e a wrong4ul e;er1ise o4 2is1retion: sin1e t0e or2er was 1onsistent wit0 t0e pra1ti1e o4 t0e Hig0 Court w0i10 was 1orre1t in prin1iple9 P'* +#*,-./ An appli1ation 4or interlo1utor< in3un1ti"e relie4 s0oul2 not 5e ma2e on an e; parte 5asis unless t0e purpose o4 su10 appli1ation woul2 5e 2e4eate2 5< gi"ing noti1e to t0e ot0er part<9 In t0e latter instan1e: reasons s0oul2 5e gi"en: on a44i2a"it: to t0e 1ourt as to w0< noti1e 0as not 5een gi"en9

C-%'% *'0'**') &1 Castle Fitness Consultancy Pte Ltd v &an' *199=+ 1 8LJ 1F1 Pic"%ic" nternational nc ()*+ Ltd v &ultiple ,ound Distributors Ltd *19B,+ RPC B-G Federal Computer ,ervices ,dn *hd v #ng -ee .ai /ric *1991+ 3 8LJ 3F1 .admor Productions Ltd 0 1rs v .amilton 0 1rs *19-3+ AC 191 Norman 2right 0 #nor v 1versea-Chinese *an"ing Corporation Ltd *199,+ , SLR B1= #merican Cyanamid Co v /thicon Ltd *19B.+ AC 39G ,altman /ngineering Co Ltd v Campbell /ngineering Co Ltd /19F-@ G. RPC ,=3 Diamond ,tylus Co Ltd v *auden Precision Diamonds Ltd 0 1rs *19B3+ RPC GB. #m%ay Corporation 0 #nor v /ur%ay nternational Ltd 0 1rs *19BF+ RPC -, 1$*rien v 3omesaroff /19-,@ 1.= CLR 31= .ytrac Conveyors Ltd v Conveyors nternational Ltd 0 1rs *19-3+ ESR G3 Loc" nternational plc v *es%ic" *19-9+ 1 #LR 1,G4nder%ater 2elders and !epairers Ltd v ,treet and Longthorn *19G-+ RPC F9Proctor ndustries Ltd v Norris *rothers Ltd *19GF+ RPC 1B9 ,peed ,eal Products Ltd v Paddington 0 #nor *19-F+ ESR BB -ohn 5in" Co Ltd v 2il"inson 0 #nor *19B3+ RPC B1B /rven 2arnin" *6 v - To%nend 0 ,ons (.ull+ Ltd *19B9+ AC B31 Tong )uan Food Products Pte Ltd v .oe .uat .ng Foodstuffs Pte Ltd *1991+ , 8LJ 3G1 2hite .udson 0 Co v #sian 1rganisation Ltd *19G.+ 8LJ 1-G The *oots Company Ltd v #pproved Prescription ,ervices Ltd *19--+ ESR F. ,teepleglade Ltd v ,tratford nvestment Ltd *19BG+ ESR 3

Page 5

8i10ael E<s0 HC an2 %an %ee Jim /Allen

>le20ill@ 4or t0e appellants9 Lee@ 4or t0e respon2ents9

8i10ael $urton HC an2 Ko0 Jua< K0erng /Lee

YONG PUNG HOW CJ 2DELI!ERING THE JUDG3ENT OF THE COURT) #e 0a"e 5e4ore us two appeals w0i10 arise out o4 interlo1utor< matters in an a1tion 5< t0e respon2ents against t0e appellants9 Ci"il Appeal 'o .B o4 1991 in"ol"es an or2er 1ontinuing interlo1utor< in3un1tions w0ile Ci"il Appeal 'o 9 o4 1991 1on1erns an appli1ation 5< t0e appellants 4or 4urt0er an2 5etter parti1ulars o4 a 1ause o4 a1tion in t0e statement o4 1laim in t0e main a1tion9 %0e 3oint "enture %0e 2ispute 5etween t0e parties arises out o4 a 3oint "enture agreement signe2 on ,, !1to5er 19B1 5etween t0e 4irst respon2ent Haw Par $rot0ers International Lt2 /6Haw Par6@ an2 C0ia Hol2ings /HK@ Lt2: a 1ompan< in1orporate2 in Hong Kong9 %0e 3oint "enture agreement was su5seCuentl< "arie2 5< a 2o1ument entitle2 60ea2s o4 agreement6 an2 2ate2 ,9 'o"em5er 19BG9 %0e 3oint "enture agreement an2 t0e 60ea2s o4 agreement6 will 0ereina4ter 5e re4erre2 to 1olle1ti"el< as 6t0e JVA69 %0e 2uration o4 t0e JVA was to 5e ,= <ears9 %0e purpose o4 t0e JVA was state2 to 5e t0e impro"ement o4 t0e manu4a1ture: mar7eting: 2istri5ution an2 sale o4 pro2u1ts ma2e un2er Haw Par6s worl2wi2e %iger $ran2 tra2e mar7 5< tapping t0e e;pertise o4 t0e 4irst appellant Ja17 C0iarapur7 /6Ja17 C0ia6@: w0o was a17nowle2ge2 as an e;pert in p0arma1euti1als an2 t0eir sale an2 2istri5ution: an2 t0e resour1es o4 t0e 1ompanies un2er 0is 1ontrol9 %0e JVA6s s1ope was limite2 territoriall< to 8ala<sia: Singapore: $runei: Hong Kong: 8a1au: %0ailan2: %aiwan: Cam5o2ia: Laos: Vietnam: P0ilippines: In2onesia: $urma: Japan: Korea: t0e Pa1i4i1 Islan2s an2 t0e 8i22le &ast /6t0e JV territories6@9 %0e JVA pro"i2e2 4or t0e in1orporation o4 Haw Par &ng Aun %ong Pte Lt2 /6HP&6@ in Singapore an2 Haw Par %iger $alm International Pte Lt2 /6HP%6@ in Hong Kong /6t0e JV 1ompanies6@ an2 t0e grant o4 li1en1es to t0e two 1ompanies 5< Haw Par 4or t0e manu4a1ture o4 %iger $ran2 pro2u1ts as t0e mo2e 5< w0i10 t0e purpose o4 t0e 3oint "enture was to 5e attaine29 %0e s0are0ol2ing in ea10 o4 t0e JV 1ompanies was 2i"i2e2 eCuall< 5etween Haw Par an2 C0ia Hol2ings /HK@ Lt29 Un2er t0e JVA: t0e promotion o4 t0e %iger $ran2 pro2u1ts woul2 5e 1arrie2 out 5< t0e JV 1ompanies or 1ompanies sele1te2 5< t0em an2 t0e pro4its o4 t0e JV 1ompanies: a4ter 2e2u1tions 4or 2i"i2en2s an2 ro<alties pa<a5le to Haw Par: woul2 5e s0are2 5etween t0e 3oint "enture partners9 Eurt0er: Ja17 C0ia woul2 ser"e as 10ie4 e;e1uti"e o44i1er o4 t0e JV 1ompanies an2 0ea2 Haw Par6s p0arma1euti1al 2i"ision9 It is important to note t0at t0e JVA was not e;1lusi"e in 10ara1ter? Haw Par 1ontinue2 to manu4a1ture an2 sell %iger $ran2 pro2u1ts in ot0er parts o4 t0e worl2 not 1o"ere2 5< t0e JVA an2 Ja17 C0ia an2 0is group o4 1ompanies 1ontinue2 t0e manu4a1ture o4 "arious ot0er p0arma1euti1al pro2u1ts9 $< a series o4 supplemental agreements in 19BG: 19-. an2 19-G: Haw Par trans4erre2 its interest in HP& to t0e se1on2 respon2ent an2 C0ia Hol2ings /HK@ Lt2 trans4erre2 its interest in HP& an2 HP% to t0e se1on2 an2 t0e t0ir2 appellants respe1ti"el<9 Howe"er: t0e trans4erees all agree2 to 5e 5oun2 5< t0e JVA9 &"ents o4 19--)199=

Page 6

%0e 3oint "enture was su11ess4ul 5etween 19B, an2 19--: an2 tal7s 5egan 5etween t0e two si2es in !1to5er 19-- wit0 a "iew to renewing t0e JVA 5e4ore it e;pire2 at t0e en2 o4 19919 It 5e1ame e"i2ent 0owe"er t0at Haw Par wis0e2 to 0a"e t0e ma3orit< 1ontrol o4 t0e JV 1ompanies an2 Ja17 C0ia was not willing to 1e2e t0e same9 $< letters 2ate2 B 'o"em5er 19-9: t0e se1on2 respon2ent ga"e noti1e to Ja17 C0ia an2 to t0e se1on2 an2 t0ir2 appellants t0at t0e JVA woul2 not 5e renewe29 In Ee5ruar< 199=: Haw Par 0ear2 rumours 4rom t0e mar7et t0at Ja17 C0ia an2 0is 1ompanies were manu4a1turing a new 5alm pro2u1t9 %0is was 1on4irme2 5< Ja17 C0ia6s representati"e at a meeting in earl< 8ar10 wit0 Haw Par6s new managing 2ire1tor9 !n . 8ar10 199=: one o4 t0e appellants issue2 a pri1e list to 2istri5utors 4or a new 5alm 1alle2 t0e >ol2en Lion S0iel2 5alm /6t0e >LS 5alm6@ w0i10 lies at t0e 0eart o4 t0e 2ispute 5etween t0e parties9 %0e new 5alm was pu5li1l< a2"ertise2 on 1 8a< 199=9 $< a letter 2ate2 1. 8a< 199=: written 5< t0e respon2ents6 soli1itors to Ja17 C0ia an2 1opie2 to t0e se1on2 an2 t0ir2 appellants: t0e respon2ents 1omplaine2 t0at t0e manu4a1ture an2 2istri5ution o4 t0e >LS 5alm in4ringe2 t0e JVA an2 was an attempt to pass o44 t0e >LS 5alm as a 5alm manu4a1ture2 un2er t0e %iger $ran2 tra2emar7 as 6%iger $alm69 %0e appellants replie2 on ,9 8a< a2mitting t0e manu4a1ture an2 2istri5ution o4 t0e >LS 5alm 5ut 2en<ing an< in4ringement or passing o449 $< a letter 2ate2 13 June: t0e respon2ents re4ute2 t0e appellants6 assertions9 Ci"il Appeal 'o .B o4 1991 !n 19 June 199=: t0e respon2ents 5egan t0ese pro1ee2ings: 1laiming 2amages an2 in3un1tions 5ase2 on 5rea10 o4 1ontra1t: 5rea10 o4 4i2u1iar< 2ut<: 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e an2 passing o44: an2 5< an e; parte appli1ation on ,, June 199=: o5taine2 t0e in3un1tions w0i10 are un2er appeal in Ci"il Appeal 'o .B o4 19919 %0e in3un1tions were su5seCuentl< "arie2 to e;1lu2e spe1i4ie2 pro2u1ts manu4a1ture2 5< t0e appellants an2 t0eir asso1iate2 1ompanies9 %0e in3un1tions against Ja17 C0ia pro"i2e2 t0at?

21) *Ja17 C0ia+ 5< 0imsel4: 0is ser"ants or agents or ot0erwise 5e restraine2: an2 an in3un1tion is 0ere5< grante2 restraining 0im until 4urt0er or2er 4rom 2oing or 4rom 1ausing: pro1uring or permitting t0e ,n2: 3r2: Ft0: .t0 or Gt0 *appellants+ to 2o an< o4 t0e 4ollowing a1ts? 2,) manu4a1turing: pa17aging: e;porting: 2istri5uting: o44ering 4or sale: selling: suppl<ing: 2isposing: promoting 5< a2"ertisement or ot0erwise or 2ealing in an< wa< in t0e >ol2en Lion S0iel2 $alm Pro2u1tsA 2,,) passing o44 or attempting to pass o44 or 1ausing: ena5ling or assisting ot0ers to pass o44 >ol2en Lion S0iel2 $alm Pro2u1ts as or as 1onne1te2 wit0 t0e %iger $alm Pro2u1tsA 2,,,) a1ting in 5rea10 o4 4i2u1iar< 2ut< or t0e 4i2u1iar< or 1ontra1tual o5ligations pursuant to *t0e JVA+ 1ompeting wit0: or 1ausing or allowing or parti1ipating in t0e manu4a1ture: sale or 2istri5ution o4 pro2u1ts 1ompeting wit0 t0ose manu4a1ture2: sol2 or 2istri5ute2 5< t0e *JV 1ompanies+ an2 in parti1ular t0e

Page 7

manu4a1ture: sale or 2istri5ution o4 t0e >ol2en Lion S0iel2 $alm Pro2u1tsA an2 2,v) ma7ing unlaw4ul use o4 1on4i2ential or ot0er in4ormation a1Cuire2 5< or entruste2 to *Ja17 C0ia+ as t0e 8anaging (ire1tor an2 C0ie4 &;e1uti"e o4 t0e *JV 1ompanies+ relating to t0e 5usiness an2 pro2u1tion o4 %iger $alm Pro2u1ts9

%0e in3un1tions against t0e ot0er appellants were in similar terms9 #e pause 4or a moment to state our 2isappro"al o4 t0e step ta7en 5< t0e respon2ents to o5tain t0e in3un1tions at an e; parte 0earing wit0out an< noti4i1ation to t0e appellants9 %0e soli1itors 4or 5ot0 si2es were in 1orrespon2en1e at t0e time an2 t0ere was 1learl< 2isagreement on t0e issue o4 w0et0er t0e manu4a1ture an2 2istri5ution o4 t0e >LS 5alm was in an< wa< wrong4ul9 In Castle Fitness Consultancy Pte Ltd v &an' *199=+ 1 8LJ 1F1 Coomaraswam< J e;presse2 t0e "iew t0at t0e pra1ti1e in Singapore s0oul2 4ollow t0at in &nglan2 as set out in Pic"%ic" nternational nc ()*+ Ltd v &ultiple ,ound Distributors Ltd *19B,+ RPC B-G an2 in a Pra1ti1e (ire1tion o4 t0e Hueen6s $en10 (i"ision 2ate2 3= 8ar10 19-39 %0e learne2 3u2ge sai2 at ? In m< 0um5le "iew: t0e opponent s0oul2 5e gi"en noti1e o4 t0e e; parte appli1ation an2 in"ite2 to atten29 Alternati"el<: in appropriate an2 3usti4ia5le instan1es: a2eCuate reason 4or not gi"ing su10 noti1e s0oul2 5e gi"en to t0e 1ourt on a44i2a"it9 In some 1ases: eg 8are"as: an appli1ant6s purpose 1an 5e 2e4eate2 5< 0is opponent 0a"ing a2"an1e 7nowle2ge o4 an e; parte appli1ation 4or an in3un1tion9 Possi5le 2e4eat o4 an appli1ant6s purpose i4 t0e a2"ersar< 0a2 7nowle2ge o4 t0e inten2e2 appli1ation will 5e an appropriate an2 3usti4ia5le instan1e w0ere noti1e nee2 not 5e gi"en9 #e are in agreement wit0 t0e "iew o4 t0e learne2 3u2ge9 %0e present 1ase was not one in w0i10 t0ere was an< reason 4or not in4orming t0e appellants o4 t0e appli1ation 4or t0e in3un1tions: nor 2i2 t0e respon2ents gi"e an< reason 4or not 2oing so9 %0e appellants: 5< summonses in 10am5ers 2ate2 ,- June 199= an2 31 !1to5er 199=: applie2 to 2is10arge t0e in3un1tions9 %0e appli1ation was 2ismisse2 5< C0ao Hi17 %in J on 1 8ar10 1991 wit0 t0e 1osts o4 t0e appli1ation in t0e 1ause9 %0e appellants now appeal against t0e 2ismissal o4 t0e appli1ation an2 t0e respon2ents 5< t0eir noti1e see7 to 0a"e t0e or2er 4or 1osts "arie2 to one t0at gi"es t0em t0e 1osts o4 t0e 0earing 5elow or in an< e"ent9 Ci"il Appeal 'o 9 o4 1991 Ci"il Appeal 'o 9 o4 1991 arises out o4 t0e 1laim 4or 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e in t0e main a1tion w0i10 is plea2e2 as 4ollows? 212) Eurt0er or in t0e 4urt0er alternati"e: in an2 a5out t0e 2e"elopment: manu4a1ture: 2istri5ution an2 mar7eting o4 t0e sai2 >ol2en Lion S0iel2 $alm pro2u1ts t0e *appellants+ 0a"e ma2e use an2/or 1ause2: pro1ure2 or permitte2 ea10 ot0er to

Page 8

ma7e use o4 1on4i2ential in4ormation t0e propert< o4 t0e *respon2ents+: alternati"el< 0a"e ma2e use o4 in4ormation entruste2 in 1on4i2en1e to t0e *appellants+ pursuant to t0e JVA an2/or 4or t0e purpose o4 1arr<ing out t0eir o5ligations t0ereun2er an2/or t0eir o5ligations towar2s t0e *JV 1ompanies+9 Parti1ulars o4 1on4i2ential in4ormation 21) %0e manu4a1turing pro1ess o4 t0e %iger $alm pro2u1tsA 22) %0e *JV 1ompanies6+ pri1ing: 2is1ount an2 5onus goo2s stru1ture9

$< summons)in)10am5ers entere2 'o FG=3 o4 199=: t0e 4ollowing parti1ulars o4 t0at plea2ing were soug0t? Un2er paragrap0 1,/1@? !4 ? %0e manu4a1turing pro1ess o4 t0e %iger $alm pro2u1tsA ReCuest? 21) /a@ 2e4ine 6%iger $alm pro2u1ts6A 24) i2enti4< wit0 ne1essar< parti1ularit< an2 5< stages t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess o4 ea10 %iger $alm pro2u1t in issueA 2+) i2enti4< t0e aut0or or aut0ors o4 ea10 sai2 pro1ess an2 w0en ea10 o4 t0e same was 2e"ise2A 2)) /i@ i2enti4< 0ow t0e pro1ess was imparte2 to t0e *appellants+ or o5taine2 4rom t0e *respon2ents+ 5< t0e *appellants+A alternati"el<: i2enti4< 5< w0om an2 to w0om t0e same was entruste2 in 1on4i2en1e pursuant to t0e JVA as allege2A 2,,) in eit0er 1ase: state w0en t0e same was imparte2: o5taine2 or entruste2A 2,,,) in eit0er 1ase: state w0et0er t0e same was so imparte2: o5taine2 or entruste2 orall< or in writing an2 i4 t0e 4ormer: i2enti4< t0e parties in"ol"e2: i4 t0e latter: i2enti4< an2 pro2u1e an< 2o1ument or 2o1uments relie2 upon9 22) Set out wit0 ne1essar< parti1ularit< an2 5< stages t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess o4 ea10 >ol2en Lion S0iel2 $alm pro2u1t use2 5< t0e *appellants+ /an2 i2enti4< w0i10 *appellant+@ o4 w0i10 1omplaint is ma2e9 23) /a@ State 5< 1omparati"e re4eren1e to ea10 stage o4 , a5o"e t0e manner in w0i10 it is allege2 t0at t0e *appellants+ or an< o4 t0em /an2 w0i10 o4 t0e *appellants+@ 0a"e ma2e use o4 t0e

Page 9

manu4a1turing pro1ess or pro1esses o4 t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts in relation to t0e 2e"elopment: manu4a1ture: 2istri5ution an2 mar7eting o4 t0e >ol2en Lion S0iel2 $alm pro2u1ts9

24) State t0e manner in w0i10 it is allege2 t0at t0e *appellants+ 0a"e 1ause2: pro1ure2 or permitte2 ea10 ot0er /an2 i2enti4< w0i10 o4 t0e ot0ers@ to ma7e use o4 t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess or pro1esses o4 t0e %iger $alm Pro2u1ts as allege29 Un2er paragrap0 1,/,@? !4? %0e Joint Companies6 pri1ing: 2is1ount an2 5onus goo2s stru1ture9 ReCuest? 21) /a@ Set out wit0 ne1essar< parti1ulars w0at is t0e 3oint 1ompanies6 2-) pri1ing stru1ture 24) 2is1ount stru1ture 2+) 5onus goo2s stru1ture /0ereina4ter 1olle1ti"el< re4erre2 to as t0e 6a4oresai2 items o4 in4ormation6@A 24) i2enti4< t0e aut0or or aut0ors o4 t0e a4oresai2 items o4 in4ormation an2 w0en ea10 o4 t0e same was 2e"ise2A 2+) state 0ow t0e *respon2ents+ or eit0er o4 t0em 1laim title as t0eir own propert< to t0e a4oresai2 items o4 in4ormationA 2)) /i@ i2enti4< 0ow t0e same was imparte2 to t0e *appellants+ or o5taine2 4rom t0e *respon2ents+ 5< t0e *appellants+A alternati"el<: i2enti4< 5< w0om an2 to w0om t0e same was entruste2 in 1on4i2en1e pursuant to t0e JVA as allege2A 2,,) in eit0er 1ase state w0en t0e same was so imparte2: o5taine2 or entruste2A 2,,,) in eit0er 1ase: state w0et0er t0e same was so imparte2: o5taine2 or entruste2 orall< or in writing an2 i4 t0e 4ormer: i2enti4< t0e parties in"ol"e2: an2 i4 t0e latter i2enti4< an2 pro2u1e an< 2o1ument or 2o1uments relie2 on9 22) Set out wit0 ne1essar< parti1ularit< t0e pri1ing: 2is1ount an2 5onus goo2s stru1ture use2 5< t0e *appellants+ /an2 i2enti4< w0i10 *appellants+@ o4 w0i10 1omplaint is ma2e9 23) /a@ State wit0 re4eren1e to ea10 o4 t0e a4oresai2 items o4 in4ormation 0ow it is allege2 t0e *appellants+ /an2 i2enti4< w0i10 *appellants+@ 0a"e ma2e use o4 t0e same in relation to t0e

Page 10

2e"elopment: manu4a1ture: 2istri5ution an2 mar7eting o4 ea10 o4 t0e >ol2en Lion S0iel2 $alm pro2u1ts9 24) State t0e manner in w0i10 it is allege2 t0at t0e *appellants+ 0a"e 1ause2: pro1ure2 or permitte2 ea10 ot0er /an2 i2enti4< w0i10 o4 t0e ot0ers@ to ma7e use o4 t0e a4oresai2 items o4 in4ormation as allege29

$< an or2er o4 1ourt ma2e on 1. !1to5er 199=: t0e assistant registrar? 2-) or2ere2 t0e respon2ents to 2e4ine wit0in 4ourteen /1F@ 2a<s o4 t0e or2er o4 1ourt t0e e;pression 6%iger $alm pro2u1ts6A 24) 2i2 not or2er t0e respon2ents to 4urnis0 parti1ulars in respe1t o4 reCuest 3/5@ un2er paragrap0 1,/1@: reCuests 1/1@ an2 3/5@ un2er paragrap0 1,/,@A an2 2+) or2ere2 t0at t0e remaining parti1ulars soug0t 5e 4urnis0e2 5< t0e respon2ents wit0in t0irt< /3=@ 2a<s o4 usual 2is1o"er< or 2is1o"er< 5< interrogatories9

!n ,9 !1to5er 199=: t0e respon2ents 4ile2 t0e 4ollowing parti1ulars in respe1t o4 t0e e;pression 6%iger $alm pro2u1ts6? %0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts re4erre2 to at paragrap0 1,/1@ 1omprise o4 t0e Re2 an2 #0ite $alm in t0e 4ollowing siDes? 21) FgmA 22) GgmA 23) 9gmA 25) 199FgmA an2 25) 3=gm9

!n appeal to t0e learne2 3u2ge: no or2er was ma2e9 Appeals against e;er1ises o4 2is1retion As t0ese appeals 1on1ern e;er1ises o4 2is1retion 5< t0e learne2 3u2ges 5elow: we 5ear in min2 t0is 1ourt6s appro"al in Federal Computer ,ervices ,dn *hd v #ng -ee .ai /ric *1991+ 3 8LJ 3F1 o4 t0e 4ollowing statement o4 prin1iple 5< Lor2 (iplo17 in .admor Productions Ltd 0 1rs v .amilton 0 1rs *19-3+ AC 191 at p ,,=? An interlo1utor< in3un1tion is a 2is1retionar< relie4 an2 t0e 2is1retion w0et0er or not to grant it is "este2 in t0e Hig0 Court 3u2ge 5< w0om t0e appli1ation

Page 11

4or it is 0ear29 Upon an appeal 4rom t0e 3u2ge6s grant or re4usal o4 an interlo1utor< in3un1tion t0e 4un1tion o4 an appellate 1ourt: w0et0er it 5e t0e Court o4 Appeal or <our Lor2s0ips6 House: is not to e;er1ise an in2epen2ent 2is1retion o4 its own9 It must 2e4er to t0e 3u2ge6s e;er1ise o4 0is 2is1retion an2 must not inter4ere wit0 it merel< upon t0e groun2 t0at t0e mem5ers o4 t0e appellate 1ourt woul2 0a"e e;er1ise2 t0e 2is1retion 2i44erentl<9 %0e 4un1tion o4 t0e appellate 1ourt is initiall< one o4 re"iew onl<9 It ma< set asi2e t0e 3u2ge6s e;er1ise o4 0is 2is1retion on t0e groun2 t0at it was 5ase2 upon a misun2erstan2ing o4 t0e law or o4 t0e e"i2en1e 5e4ore 0im or upon an in4eren1e t0at parti1ular 4a1ts e;iste2 or 2i2 not e;ist: w0i10: alt0oug0 it was one t0at mig0t legitimatel< 0a"e 5een 2rawn upon t0e e"i2en1e t0at was 5e4ore t0e 3u2ge: 1an 5e 2emonstrate2 to 5e wrong 5< 4urt0er e"i2en1e t0at 0as 5e1ome a"aila5le 5< t0e time o4 t0e appealA or upon t0e groun2 t0at t0ere 0as 5een a 10ange o4 1ir1umstan1es a4ter t0e 3u2ge ma2e 0is or2er t0at woul2 0a"e 3usti4ie2 0is a11e2ing to an appli1ation to "ar< it9 Sin1e reasons gi"en 5< 3u2ges 4or granting or re4using interlo1utor< in3un1tions ma< sometimes 5e s7et10<: t0ere ma< also 5e o11asional 1ases w0ere e"en t0oug0 no erroneous assumption o4 law or 4a1t 1an 5e i2enti4ie2 t0e 3u2ge6s 2e1ision to grant or re4use t0e in3un1tion is so a5errant t0at it must 5e set asi2e upon t0e groun2 t0at no reasona5le 3u2ge regar24ul o4 0is 2ut< to a1t 3u2i1iall< 1oul2 0a"e rea10e2 it9 It is onl< i4 an2 a4ter t0e appellate 1ourt 0as rea10e2 t0e 1on1lusion t0at t0e 3u2ge6s e;er1ise o4 0is 2is1retion must 5e set asi2e 4or one or ot0er o4 t0ese reasons: t0at it 5e1omes entitle2 to e;er1ise an original 2is1retion o4 its own9 %0e same prin1iple applies to appli1ations 4or parti1ulars? Norman 2right 0 #nor v 1versea-Chinese *an"ing Corporation Ltd7 *199,+ , SLR B1= &;pir< o4 t0e JVA Sin1e t0e 0earing o4 t0e appli1ation 5elow to 2is10arge t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tions: t0e JVA 0as: on 31 (e1em5er 1991: e;pire29 A11or2ingl<: t0e in3un1tions 5ase2 on restraining t0e 5rea10es o4 1ontra1t an2/or 4i2u1iar< 2ut< arising out o4 t0e 3oint "enture 1annot 5e sustaine2 an2 1ounsel 4or t0e respon2ents 2i2 not see7 to support t0eir 1ontinuation9 Howe"er: 0e stresse2 t0at t0e lapsing o4 t0at groun2 4or t0e in3un1tions 2i2 not a44e1t t0e 4in2ings o4 t0e learne2 3u2ge t0at t0ere were serious issues to 5e trie2 on t0ose groun2s: an2: in parti1ular: t0at t0ere was a real issue as to 5rea10 o4 4i2u1iar< 2ut< 5< Ja17 C0ia9 #e 2o not Cuestion t0at t0ere ma< in2ee2 5e serious issues to 5e trie2 on t0ose matters 5ut: wit0 t0e e;pir< o4 t0e JVA: t0e respon2ents6 reme2< 4or t0ose wrongs lies in 2amages an2 not 5< wa< o4 in3un1tion9 It is not 1orre1t to see7 to 3usti4< a restraint on t0e appellants 5< re4eren1e to a 5roa2 sense o4 wrong 2oing9 %0ere must 5e spe1i4i1 1ontinuing wrongs t0at are issues to 5e trie2 an2 t0e 5alan1e o4 1on"enien1e must 5e in 4a"our o4 restraining t0e allege2l< wrong4ul a1ts until trial or 4urt0er or2er? #merican Cyanamid Co v /thicon Ltd *19B.+ AC 39G #e t0ere4ore turn to 1onsi2er i4 t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tions 1an 5e 3usti4ie2 un2er eit0er 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e or passing o44 or 5ot09 %0e appli1ation 4or parti1ulars will 5e 1onsi2ere2 wit0 t0e 1onsi2eration o4 t0e 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e groun29 $rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e )) Ci"il Appeal 'o .B o4 1991

Page 12

%0e learne2 3u2ge in 2e1i2ing to 1ontinue t0e in3un1tions restraining 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e reasone2? In t0e lig0t o4 t0e 5rie4 4a1ts set out a5o"e it is Cuite 1lear t0at t0e plainti44s an2 t0e 4irst t0ree 2e4en2ants are in a 3oint "enture: a "enture to manu4a1ture: promote: sell an2 2e"elop t0e %iger $ran2 pro2u1ts: in1lu2ing t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts: 4or mutual a2"antage an2 pro4it9 %0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation w0i10 woul2 5e 4urnis0e2 5< t0e plainti44s to t0e 3oint 1ompanies s0oul2 onl< 5e use2 4or t0e purpose o4 manu4a1turing t0e %iger $ran2 pro2u1ts 5< t0e 3oint 1ompanies an2 not 4or an< ot0er purpose9 Loo7ing at t0e terms o4 t0e JVA: I am in1line2 to t0in7 t0at t0ere is a 4i2u1iar< relations0ip 5etween t0e parti1ipants to t0e 3oint "enture arrangements or t0ere is at least an argua5le 1ase 4or it9 999 In an< e"ent w0ere in4ormation pro"i2e2 is to 5e 1onsi2ere2 as 1on4i2ential: its use an2 2is1losure un2er general law is to 5e limite2 to t0e purpose 4or w0i10 t0e in4ormation is gi"en? see Torrington &anufacturing v ,mith 0 ,ons Ltd /19GG@ RPC ,-. at 3=19 It is ne;t argue2 5< t0e 2e4en2ants t0at t0e plainti44s 0a"e not s0own t0at t0e< 0a"e impart 1on4i2ential in4ormation to t0e 4irst t0ree 2e4en2ants or t0e 3oint 1ompanies9 %0e 2e4en2ants sa< t0at t0e plainti44s 0a"e not 5een a5le to i2enti4< wit0 ne1essar< pre1ision an< in4ormation w0i10 is 1on4i2ential9 In 4urt0er ela5oration: t0e 2e4en2ants a"er t0at t0ere is not0ing 1on4i2ential a5out t0e 6manu4a1turing pro1ess6 w0i10 t0e< i2enti4ie2 to 1onsist o4 t0e 4ollowing 4i"e stages? 2,) mi;ing a1ti"e ingre2ients to 4orm a 1on1entrateA 2,,) mi;ing t0e 5ase materials or e;1ipientA 2,,,) mi;ing t0e 1on1entrate wit0 t0e 5ase materialsA

2,v) 4illing t0e mi;ture into appropriate 1ontainersA 2v) pa17aging t0e pro2u1t9 %0e plainti44s answer t0at t0at is not all9 %0ose are t0e 5asi1 steps9 #0at are 1on4i2ential are t0e 2etails relating to ea10 step: eg at w0at temperature t0e eCuipment use2 s0oul2 5e setA at w0i10 stage s0oul2 ea10 o4 t0e ingre2ients 5e a22e2A an2 t0e 2uration t0e ingre2ients are to 5e 7ept in t0at state /see para F3 o4 t0e a44i2a"it o4 %an Hee C0ai a44irme2 on 1G 'o"em5er 199=@9 In so 4ar as t0e ingre2ients t0at are nee2e2 to manu4a1ture t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts: t0e 2e4en2ants su5mitte2 t0at t0ere is not0ing 1on4i2ential a5out t0at 5e1ause t0e ingre2ients are s0own an2 printe2 on t0e pro2u1t itsel4A t0e< are matters o4 pu5li1 7nowle2ge9 #0ile t0at is true: it seems to me t0at is not all9 %0e ingre2ients t0at go into ma7ing a pro2u1t is one t0ingA t0e pro1ess anot0er9 999 %0e 4a1t t0at t0e ingre2ients t0at

Page 13

go into t0e ma7ing o4 t0e pro2u1t are 2is1lose2 on t0e pa17aging o4 t0e pro2u1t 2oes not mean t0at all t0e te10ni1al in4ormation/ 7now)0ow nee2e2 to manu4a1ture t0e pro2u1t 0as 5e1ome pu5li1 7nowle2ge9 In an< e"ent 0a"ing regar2 to t0e e;press pro"isions in t0e JVA an2 t0e li1en1e agreements w0i10 spe1i4i1all< re4er to 1on4i2ential in4ormation 5eing imparte2 5< t0e plainti44s to t0e 3oint 1ompanies: I 2o not t0in7 it is possi5le 4or t0e 1ourt at t0is interlo1utor< stage: wit0out 0earing oral e"i2en1e: to rule t0at t0e 4irst plainti44 0as not imparte2 an< 1on4i2ential in4ormation9 Putting it at t0e lowest: it is an issue to 5e trie29 $e4ore mo"ing to t0e se1on2 groun2: I s0oul2 sa< t0is 4or 1ompleteness9 Anot0er aspe1t o4 1on4i2ential in4ormation re4erre2 to 5< t0e plainti44s relates to pri1ing 4ormula9 I 2o not t0in7 t0ere is an<t0ing "er< mu10 in t0is aspe1t9 I note t0at t0is in4ormation is ma2e 7nown to all su5)2istri5utors an2 retailers9 %0e respon2ents 0a"e not 1ross)appeale2 against t0e 4in2ing t0at t0e pri1ing 4ormula 4or %iger 5alm is not 1on4i2ential9 #e are a11or2ingl< onl< 1on1erne2 wit0 w0et0er t0e in3un1tions are 3usti4ia5le on t0e 5asis o4 t0e 1on4i2entialit< o4 t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess o4 %iger $alm9 8r E<s0 4or t0e appellants 1on1e2e2 t0at t0e JVA impose2 an o5ligation o4 1on4i2en1e upon t0e appellants9 He 1onten2e2 0owe"er t0at t0is 4a1t on its own was not su44i1ient to 4oun2 an a1tion 4or 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e as su10 a 1ause o4 a1tion is ma2e up o4 t0ree 1umulati"e elements w0i10 1ounsel: 5asing 0imsel4 on ,altman /ngineering Co Ltd v Campbell /ngineering Co Ltd /19F-@ G. RPC ,=3 an2 )urry on *reach of Confidence /19-F@ at p F: 4ormulate2 as 4ollows? 2-) t0at t0e in4ormation must in0erentl< possess t0e Cualit< o4 1on4i2en1eA in ot0er wor2s: it must not 5e in t0e pu5li1 2omain: an2 24) t0at t0e 4oregoing in4ormation must 0a"e 5een imparte2 un2er 1ir1umstan1es importing an o5ligation o4 1on4i2en1e: an2 2+) t0at its re1ipient 0as t0erea4ter misuse2 t0at in4ormation9

Counsel 1onten2e2 t0at t0e appli1ation 4or t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tions 4aile2 in limine as t0e respon2ents 0a2 not s0own t0at t0ere were serious issues to 5e trie2 in respe1t o4 /a@ an2 /1@ sin1e t0e< 0a2 4aile2 to parti1ulariDe t0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation w0i10 t0e< see7 to prote1t9 In support o4 t0at su5mission: 1ounsel stresse2 t0e 10anges o4 position 5< t0e respon2ents on t0e general parti1ulars o4 t0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation9 In t0e a44i2a"it o4 %an Hee C0ai 4ile2 on 19 June 199= in support o4 t0e e; parte appli1ation 4or t0e in3un1tions: t0e respon2ents relie2 on t0e ingre2ients ma7ing up %iger 5alm as 1onstituting t0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation9 Howe"er: in t0eir statement o4 1laim 4ile2 on 3 August 199=: t0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation was state2 to 5e 6t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess6 o4 t0e 5alm9 'o more spe1i4i1 in4ormation was 4ort01oming 2espite t0e appli1ation 4or parti1ulars in w0i10 t0e appellants suggeste2 in an a44i2a"it o4 Step0en Leow: t0e person t0en responsi5le 4or t0eir manu4a1ture o4 %iger 5alm: 4ile2 on 13 Septem5er 199=: t0at t0ere were t0e 4i"e steps in t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess w0i10 t0e learne2 3u2ge set out in 0is 3u2gment9 %0e respon2ents: s0ortl< 5e4ore t0e 0earing 5elow: 4ile2 on 1G 'o"em5er

Page 14

199= a 4urt0er a44i2a"it a44irme2 5< %an Hee C0ai t0at 1ommente2 on t0e 4i"e steps as 4ollows? %0e plainti44s sa< t0at t0e a5o"e 2es1ription is a "er< 5asi1 an2 general 2es1ription9 It 2oes not a22ress in 2etail t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess an2 t0e 1on4i2ential an2/or ot0er in4ormation 1onne1te2 t0ereto9 Eor instan1e: 8r Leow 0as not in2i1ate2 amongst ot0ers: at w0at temperature t0e eCuipment use2 s0oul2 5e set atA at w0i10 stage s0oul2 ea10 o4 t0e ingre2ients 5e a22e2 an2 t0e 2uration t0e ingre2ients are to 5e 7ept in t0at state 5e4ore t0e a1tual manu4a1turing pro1ess 1an 5e sai2 to 5e 1omplete29 %0e plainti44s will pro2u1e to t0e 3u2ge at t0e 0earing o4 t0is a1tion: in4ormation relating to t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess o4 t0e %iger $alm pro2u1t to s0ow t0e misuse 5< t0e 2e4en2ants o4 1on4i2ential an2/or ot0er in4ormation relating t0ereto9 8r $urton: on t0e ot0er 0an2: stresse2 t0at t0e appellants 0a2 manu4a1ture2 %iger 5alm un2er t0e JVA arrangements9 It was t0ere4ore o5"ious: 0e 1onten2e2: t0at t0e< 7new w0at was 1on4i2ential an2 it was moreo"er ineCuita5le or un3ust t0at t0e< s0oul2 o5tain a 6spring5oar26 in t0e 1ommen1ement o4 t0eir 5usiness 5< t0eir wrong2oing9 #e 0a"e 2i44i1ult< a11epting 8r $urton6s argument 4or t0e reason t0at it is ne1essar<: in our "iew: t0at a part< see7ing to in3un1t anot0er 4rom utiliDing allege2l< 1on4i2ential in4ormation 0as to 5e spe1i4i1 a5out w0at 0e see7s to restrain9 %0is reCuirement o4 spe1i4i1it< 4lows 4rom t0e nee2 to s0ow t0at t0ere is a serious issue to 5e trie2 in respe1t o4 ea10 element o4 t0e 1ause o4 a1tion an2 also 4rom t0e nee2 4or 1ertaint< as to w0at a1t is 5eing soug0t to 5e restraine29 %0is reCuirement was 2is1usse2 in Diamond ,tylus Co Ltd v *auden Precision Diamonds Ltd 0 1rs *19B3+ RPC GB.9 In t0at 1ase: t0e plainti44s allege2 t0at t0e 2e4en2ants 0a2 wrong4ull< use2 t0eir se1ret pro1ess 4or t0e manu4a1ture o4 2iamon2 st<li9 %0e< 2i2 not: 0owe"er: spe1i4< w0at t0e se1ret pro1ess was9 In re4using to grant an interlo1utor< in3un1tion: >ra0am J sai2 at ? I4 a plainti44 is alleging t0at 0e is in possession o4 a se1ret pro1ess or possesses 1on4i2ential in4ormation an2 t0at t0e 2e4en2ant 0as wronge2 0im 5< using or 2is1losing t0at se1ret pro1ess or 1on4i2ential in4ormation: 0e is ne1essaril< in an< trial in a 2i44i1ult position unless 0e is prepare2 to state 1learl< w0at is t0e nature o4 t0e pro1ess or in4ormation in w0i10 0e 1laims proprietar< rig0ts an2 w0i10 0e 1laims 0as 5een use2 5< t0e 2e4en2ant9 His 2i44i1ult< is t0at i4 0e 2oes 2is1lose in 2etail w0at 0is pro1ess is: 0e t0ere5< gi"es awa< se1rets: w0i10 is t0e one t0ing 0e 2oes not want to 2o: t0oug0 0e ma< in su10 a 1ase 5e a5le to ma7e out 0is prima 4a1ie 1ase 5< s0owing t0at t0e 2e4en2ant 0as use2 part or t0e w0ole o4 t0at pro1ess9 I4: on t0e ot0er 0an2: 0e is not prepare2 to 2is1lose 0is se1ret t0en 0e is in an o5"ious 2i44i1ult< in s0owing t0at w0at t0e 2e4en2ant 0as 2one is to ta7e t0at se1ret: 5e1ause t0ere is not e; 0<pot0esi su44i1ient i2enti4i1ation o4 t0e latter to ena5le a satis4a1tor< 1on1lusion to 5e 2rawn9 Here in t0e present 1ase t0e plainti44s: t0e (iamon2 St<lus Co Lt2: are unwilling to 2is1lose an2 0a"e not in 4a1t 2is1lose2 w0at t0eir pro1ess is in 2etail at all9 %0e< sa< t0at t0eir pro1ess in"ol"es t0e use o4 tum5ling apparatus an2 a tum5ling pro1ess w0i10 t0e<

Page 15

o5taine2 t0e rig0t to use un2er li1en1e 4rom a Swiss 1ompan<: Ra<mon2 Cie9 %0e< go on to sa< t0at t0e e"i2en1e s0ows: or at an< rate t0at t0e proper in4eren1e 4rom t0e e"i2en1e is t0at t0e 2e4en2ants are using t0is pro1ess an2 t0at t0e< 1oul2 onl< 0a"e got t0e i2ea o4 using it 4rom t0e plainti44s9 Alt0oug0: 8r Stanle< put t0e matter as 4or1i5l< an2 1learl< as it 1oul2 5e put on 5e0al4 o4 0is 1lients: I am not satis4ie2 t0at t0e plainti44s 0a"e 0ere ma2e out a prima 4a1ie 1ase w0i10 is su44i1ientl< strong or 1lear on t0is 5ran10 o4 t0e 1ase to 3usti4< t0e grant o4 an interlo1utor< in3un1tion9 'o 2etails o4 t0e Ra<mon2 Cie pro1ess are spe1i4ie2 5< t0e plainti44s: t0at is to sa<: t0e< 2o not spe1i4< w0et0er t0e< use an< parti1ular grin2ing material: lu5ri1ant: nor w0at ot0er 2etails are in"ol"e2 in t0e pro1ess: an2 also it is not 1lear w0et0er t0e 2e4en2ants are in 4a1t using t0e same apparatus as t0at use2 5< t0e plainti44s: nor as alrea2< state2: i4 t0e< are: w0at are t0e 2etails o4 t0e pro1ess in"ol"e2 in su10 use9 A similar point was ma2e in a 2i44erent wa< 5< $rig0tman J in #m%ay Corporation 0 #nor v /ur%ay nternational Ltd 0 1rs *19BF+ RPC -, w0ere t0e plainti44s soug0t to in3un1t t0e 2e4en2ants 4rom ma7ing use o4 in4ormation 1ontaine2 in t0eir 5usiness literature9 %0e learne2 3u2ge sai2 at ? I as7e2 t0e plainti44s6 1ounsel i4 0e 1oul2 point in 0is literature to some parti1ular pie1e o4 in4ormation w0i10 0e sai2 was 1on4i2ential an2 w0i10 0e 1laime2 t0e 2e4en2ants were wrongl< using9 He tol2 me t0at 0e pointe2 to not0ing in issue 0ere 5ut to t0e entiret< o4 t0e plainti44s6 2o1umentar< material w0i10 is in e"i2en1e9 It seems to me t0at a 1laim 4or a5use o4 1on4i2ential in4ormation 1annot reall< 5e 2ealt wit0 in t0at wa<9 I4 I ma2e an or2er restraining t0e 2e4en2ants 4rom using 4or t0eir own purposes an< o4 t0e 2o1umentar< material 1ontaine2 in t0e plainti44s6 5usiness literature: 5ut 2i2 not i2enti4< t0e parti1ular in4ormation t0at t0e 2e4en2ants are not to impart: t0e< woul2 5e pla1e2 in a most em5arrassing situation9 I 2o not 7now 0ow t0e< 1oul2 2e1i2e w0at 5usiness met0o2s: literature an2 paperwor7 to a"oi2 using in or2er to 7eep 1lear o4 1ontempt o4 1ourtA an2 I t0in7 t0at t0at is an insupera5le 2i44i1ult< in t0e plainti44s6 1laim un2er t0is 0ea29 %0e a5o"e statement o4 law was Cuote2 wit0 appro"al 5< t0e Hig0 Court o4 Australia in 1$*rien v 3omesaroff /19-,@ 1.= CLR 31= at p 3,B9 In .ytrac Conveyors Ltd v Conveyors nternational Ltd 0 1rs8 *19-3+ ESR G3 t0e plainti44s6 writ soug0t in3un1tions restraining t0e 2e4en2ants 4rom in4ringing t0e plainti44s6 1op<rig0t in 2rawings relating to materials 0an2ling s<stems an2 using unspe1i4ie2 1on4i2ential in4ormation9 A4ter issue o4 t0e writ: t0e plainti44s 4irst o5taine2 Anton Piller or2ers an2 t0en su5seCuentl< soug0t interlo1utor< in3un1tions9 (espite remin2ers 5< t0e 2e4en2ants: t0e plainti44s 4aile2 to ser"e t0eir statement o4 1laim an2 t0e 2e4en2ants e"entuall<: w0ile t0e motions 4or t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tions were pen2ing: too7 out a summons to stri7e out t0e pro1ee2ings un2er ! 19 r 19 %0e appli1ation su11ee2e2 5e4ore #0it4or2 J w0o state2 at ? It is not rig0t in m< 3u2gment: t0at t0e plainti44s s0oul2 start an a1tion apparentl< not in a position e"en to 7now w0at 4orm o4 statement o4 1laim t0e< s0oul2 ma7e until possi5l< a4ter an Anton Piller or2er 0as 5een se1ure2

Page 16

an2 t0e e"i2en1e upon an appli1ation 4or an interlo1utor< in3un1tion 0as 5een ta7en t0roug0 to t0e en29 It is in m< 3u2gment parti1ularl< important w0ere Cuestions o4 in4ringement o4 1op<rig0t are 1on1erne2 an2 w0ere Cuestions o4 1on4i2en1e are 1on1erne2 t0at in t0e 1learest possi5le terms t0e e;a1t am5it o4 t0e plainti44s6 1laim in t0ese regar2s s0oul2 5e ma2e 7nown9 %0is approa10 was appro"e2 on appeal an2 Lawton LJ w0o 2eli"ere2 t0e main 3u2gment state2 at ? It 0as to 5e remem5ere2 5< all 1on1erne2 t0at we 2o not 0a"e in t0is 1ountr< an inCuisitorial pro1e2ure 4or 1i"il litigation9 !ur pro1e2ure is a11usatorial9 %0ose w0o ma7e 10arges must state rig0t at t0e 5eginning w0at t0e< are an2 w0at 4a1ts t0e< are 5ase2 upon9 A most instru1ti"e 1ase is Loc" v *es%ic" *19-9+ 1 #LR 1,G- in w0i10 t0e plainti44 soug0t: inter alia: an in3un1tion against se"eral 4ormer emplo<ees restraining t0em 4rom using suppose2l< 1on4i2ential in4ormation 2es1ri5e2 in a s10e2ule w0i10 t0e plainti44 allege2 t0e 2e4en2ants were using to gain an a2"antage or 6spring5oar26 in t0eir 1ompeting 5usiness9 Ho44man J sai2 in a passage wort0< o4 e;tensi"e Cuotation at ? $e4ore t0e 6spring5oar26 2o1trine 1an 5e in"o7e2: 0owe"er: it must 5e s0own t0at t0e in4ormation w0i10 1onstitute2 t0e spring5oar2 was in4ormation w0i10 t0e 2e4en2ants 1oul2 not law4ull< use9 It woul2 not: 4or e;ample: 5e su44i1ient to sa< in general terms t0at t0e< were e;tremel< 4amiliar wit0 t0e wa< 8etal10e17 2ete1tors wor7e2 )) wit0: as t0e plainti446s witnesses repeate2l< sa<: t0eir 6strengt0s an2 wea7nesses96 %0ere ma< 0a"e 5een some parti1ular strengt0 or wea7ness w0i10 was in2ee2 a tra2e se1ret: 5ut general 4amiliarit< is pre)eminentl< t0e 7in2 o4 s7ill an2 7nowle2ge w0i10 t0e 0onest emplo<ee 1annot 0elp ta7ing awa< wit0 0im9 It is o4 1ourse tempting in an a1tion su10 as t0is: 1on1erne2 wit0 t0e te10ni1alities o4 ele1troni1s: to sa< t0at t0e Cuestions at issue 1an onl< 5e in"estigate2 at t0e trial an2 t0at 4or #merican Cyanamid purposes / #merican Cyanamid Co v /thicon Ltd *19B.+ AC 39G@ t0e plainti44 must 5e treate2 as 0a"ing an argua5le 1ase9 It woul2 0owe"er 5e un3ust to t0e 2e4en2ants simpl< to allow t0e plainti44 to 5lin2 t0e 1ourt wit0 s1ienti4i1 5analities9 #e 2o not o"erloo7 t0e 2e1ision in 4nder%ater 2elders and !epairers Ltd v ,treet and Longthorn *19G-+ RPC F9- %0ere t0e plainti44s soug0t an interim in3un1tion restraining t0eir e;)emplo<ees 4rom using a pro1ess 4or t0e 1leaning o4 s0ip 0ulls9 %0e plainti44s 2i2 not gi"e parti1ulars as to w0i10 aspe1ts o4 t0e pro1ess t0e< 1laime2 were 1on4i2ential9 'onet0eless: $u17le< J grante2 t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tion: ta7ing t0e "iew t0at more 1oul2 not 5e e;pe1te2 in interlo1utor< pro1ee2ings9 %0at 2e1ision: 0owe"er: stan2s alone against t0e weig0t o4 aut0orit<9 8oreo"er: it was 1on4ine2 to its 4a1ts 5< >ra0am J in t0e Diamond ,tylus case *19B3+ RPC GB.9 #it0 respe1t: we also 2o not agree wit0 it in prin1iple9 A plainti44 s0oul2 5e prepare2 to ma7e out 0is 1ase an2 not e;pe1t t0e 1ourt to spe1ulate e"en at t0e interlo1utor< stage: e"en i4 onl< an argua5le issue 0as to 5e ma2e out9 %0e 1ourt 0as means o4 ensuring t0at t0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation is not seen

Page 17

5< an<one ot0er t0an t0e $en10 or: i4 ne1essar<: an e;pert witness? see generall< )urry on *reach of Confidence at 9 #0en we turn to t0e present appeal: we 2o not 4in2 an< parti1ulariDation o4 t0e respon2ents6 1laim 5ut merel< a statement t0at t0e 2etails o4 t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess are 1on4i2ential9 It must 5e 5orne in min2 not onl< t0at t0e 4irst appellant was 5roug0t into t0e JVA 4or 0is e;pertise as an a17nowle2ge2 e;pert in p0arma1euti1als 5ut also t0at t0e respon2ents t0emsel"es manu4a1ture %iger 5alm in areas ot0er t0an t0e JV territories9 Iet: t0e< 0a"e o44ere2 no e"i2en1e 5< an<one 4amiliar wit0 t0e manu4a1ture o4 t0e 5alm9 Instea2: t0e a44i2a"its on t0eir 5e0al4 0a"e 5een a44irme2 5< %an Hee C0ai: t0e group general manager o4 Haw Par an2 t0e 1ompan< se1retar< o4 t0e se1on2 respon2ent9 In 0is a44i2a"it 4ile2 on 19 June 199= in support o4 t0e e; parte appli1ation: 0e states t0at 0e was 6a2"ise26 t0at t0e ingre2ients o4 t0e >LS 5alm are su5stantiall< t0e same as t0ose o4 %iger 5alm9 He 2oes not go on to state t0e i2entit< an2 Cuali4i1ations o4 t0ose a2"ising 0im9 Similarl<: in 0is later a44i2a"it 4ile2 on 1G 'o"em5er 199=: 0e simpl< states t0at it is t0e respon2ents6 "iew t0at t0e 2etails o4 t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess an2 t0e 61on4i2ential an2/or ot0er in4ormation 1onne1te2 t0ereto6 are 1on4i2ential wit0out stating t0e sour1e o4 su10 5elie49 %0ere is t0us a 2ou5le 4ailing9 %0ere is not su44i1ient parti1ulariDation an2 w0at little in4ormation t0ere is emanates 4rom a sour1e t0at 1laims no 4amiliarit< wit0 t0e manu4a1ture o4 t0e pro2u1t9 8r $urton relie2 on t0e 1ase o4 Proctor ndustries Ltd v Norris *rothers Ltd7 *19GF+ RPC 1B9 In t0at 1ase: t0e plainti44s 0a2 emplo<e2 t0e 2e4en2ants as 1onsulting 2esign engineers 4or t0e purpose o4 2esigning an2 2e"eloping on t0eir 5e0al4 a protot<pe lo17ing 2e"i1e 4or an automati1 sa4et< 5elt9 %0e 2e4en2ants su5seCuentl< pro2u1e2 a ri"al 2e"i1e an2 t0e plainti44s allege2: inter alia: in t0eir statement o4 1laim t0at in 2esigning an2 2e"eloping t0e ri"al 2e"i1e: t0e 2e4en2ants wrong4ull< an2 in 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e 6999 use2 4or t0eir own en2s t0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation supplie2 to t0em 5< t0e plainti44s99969 It was not in 2ispute t0at t0e plainti44s 0a2 gi"en t0e 2e4en2ants 1on4i2ential in4ormation alt0oug0 t0e e;tent o4 t0e in4ormation gi"en to t0e 2e4en2ants was 2ispute29 %0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation allege2l< supplie2 was plea2e2 in para . o4 t0e statement o4 1laim an2 parti1ulars were soug0t un2er t0at paragrap0 an2 were supplie29 Parti1ulars were also soug0t un2er para - o4 t0e statement o4 1laim o4 6999 t0e manner t0e 2e4en2ants 0a"e use2 9996 t0e in4ormation state2 in para . Plowman J re4use2 to or2er t0e parti1ulars soug0t: stating at ? In regar2 to t0e Cuestion o4 t0e manner in w0i10 t0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation is sai2 to 0a"e 5een use2: 4or m<sel4 I 2o not see 0ow t0e plainti44s 1an sa< more t0an t0at in 2esigning an2 2e"eloping t0e ri"al 2e"i1e t0e 2e4en2ants use2 1on4i2ential in4ormation9 As I sa<: t0e plainti44s are sa<ing: in e44e1t: 0ere is <our 2e"i1eA t0is is t0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation we ga"e <ouA t0e in4eren1e must 5e t0at in pro2u1ing <our 2e"i1e <ou use2 it9 In t0ose 1ir1umstan1es: I 2o not t0in7 t0e plainti44s 1an 5e as7e2 to 5e more spe1i4i19 In our "iew: t0e 2e1ision is o4 little assistan1e to t0e respon2ents9 %0ere was no 2ispute in t0at 1ase t0at 1on4i2ential in4ormation 0a2 5een gi"en 5< t0e plainti44s to t0e 2e4en2ants9 In2ee2: parti1ulars 0a2 5een gi"en o4 t0e in4ormation supplie29 #0at was in issue t0ere was t0e manner t0e in4ormation was use2A a matter wit0in t0e 7nowle2ge o4 t0e 2e4en2ants alone9 %0e plainti44s were entitle2 to rel< on an in4eren1e t0at t0e

Page 18

in4ormation 0a2 5een use2 5e1ause o4 t0e a2mitte2 similarit< o4 purpose 5etween t0e two 2e"i1es9 %0us Harman J sai2 in ,peed ,eal Products Ltd v Paddington 0 #nor *19-F+ ESR BB at p B9? I entirel< agree an2 a11ept 4rom t0e 2e1ision w0i10 8r Ho55s 1ite2 to me in Proctor ndustries Ltd v Norris *rothers *supra+ 999 t0at 999 one 1an per4e1tl< properl< allege 5< wa< o4 in4eren1e 4rom plea2e2 4a1ts t0at su10 a t0ing as use of 1on4i2ential in4ormation must 5e in4erre2: an2 t0ere is no ne1essit< in su10 a 1ase to gi"e parti1ulars o4 t0e ta7ing o4 t0e 1on4i2ential in4ormation9 /!ur emp0asis9@ %0e position in t0e present appeal is Cuite 2i44erent9 It is 1learl< 2ispute2 t0at t0e in4ormation t0e appellants 0a"e use2 is 1on4i2ential an2: in t0e a5sen1e o4 parti1ulariDation: t0e respon2ents6 1ause o4 a1tion simpl< is not ma2e out9 In our "iew t0ere4ore: t0e 2is1retion o4 t0e learne2 3u2ge in 1ontinuing t0ein3un1tions was e;er1ise2 on a wrong prin1iple o4 law9 It was 4or t0e respon2ents to s0ow t0at t0e< 0a2 imparte2 1on4i2ential in4ormation to t0e appellants w0i10 t0e appellants were wrong4ull< using to gain an a2"antage in t0eir 1ompeting 5usiness9 It was not su44i1ient 4or t0e respon2ents merel< to allege: an2 5< an o44i1er w0o was not personall< 1on"ersant wit0 t0e 2etails: t0at t0ere was a manu4a1turing pro1ess: t0e 2etaile2 parti1ulars o4 w0i10 were 1on4i2ential: an2 not 2is1lose t0em9 It was in1um5ent on t0em to 5e spe1i4i1 5e4ore in3un1tions 1oul2 5e 3usti4ie2 on t0e 5asis o4 t0e 1on4i2entialit< o4 t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess9 In t0e a5sen1e o4 an< attempt at 4urt0er ela5oration 5< t0e respon2ents 5e4ore us o4 w0at t0e< sa< is 1on4i2ential: we 2is10arge t0e in3un1tions 5ase2 on 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e9 Con4i2ential in4ormation )) Ci"il Appeal 'o 9 o4 1991 #e now turn to t0e appeal in respe1t o4 t0e appli1ation 4or parti1ulars o4 t0e statement o4 1laim9 %0ere are two aspe1ts to t0is9 Eirst: t0e learne2 3u2ge in re4using parti1ulars o4 reCuest 3/5@ un2er paras 1,/1@ an2 1,/,@ 0el2 t0at t0e< were attempts to eli1it t0e respon2ent6s e"i2en1e9 8r E<s0 1onten2e2 t0at t0is was to mis1on1ei"e t0e reCuests w0i10 were in 4a1t 2ire1te2 at t0e respon2ents6 allegation t0at t0e appellants 0a2 3ointl< a1te2 in 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e9 #e agree wit0 1ounsel6s su5mission9 %0e parti1ulars soug0t go to t0e manner in w0i10 it is sai2 t0at t0e appellants 0a"e 3ointl< 1ommitte2 t0e 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e9 It is essential t0at t0e appellants 7now w0at is allege2 against t0em9 Se1on2l<: in re4using to "ar< t0e assistant registrar6s or2er 4or 5est parti1ulars o4 t0e ot0er reCuests to 5e 2eli"ere2 3= 2a<s a4ter 2is1o"er<: t0e learne2 3u2ge reasone2 t0at sin1e t0e 4irst t0ree appellants 0a"e 5een in"ol"e2 wit0 t0e manu4a1ture an2 2istri5ution o4 %iger 5alm 4or some time: t0e< 0a2 5etter 7nowle2ge o4 t0e matters soug0t un2er t0e parti1ulars t0an t0e respon2ents 2i29 He t0en 0el2 t0at t0e respon2ents 1oul2 not pro"i2e parti1ulars wit0out la5orious resear10 or e;0austi"e enCuir<: an2 4urt0er t0at t0e parties were in a 4i2u1iar< relations0ip9 He a11or2ingl< applie2 paras 1-/1,/F. an2 1-/1,/F3 o4 t0e Supreme Court Pra1ti1e 19919 'o mention was ma2e in t0e groun2s o4 2e1ision o4 t0e learne2 3u2ge o4 t0e non) e;1lusi"e 10ara1ter o4 t0e JVA9 %0is 10ara1teristi1 o4 t0e JVA allowe2 t0e respon2ents to manu4a1ture an2 2istri5ute %iger 5alm in areas o4 t0e worl2 apart 4rom t0e JV territories9

Page 19

It is a mis1on1eption o4 t0e 4a1ts to sa< t0at t0e respon2ents 0a"e no 7nowle2ge o4 t0e manu4a1turing pro1ess an2 t0e sales in4ormation relating to %iger 5alm9 8oreo"er: t0e< are also s0are0ol2ers in t0e JV 1ompanies9 #e 2o not t0in7 t0at it woul2 5e rig0t to limit t0e appellants to 5est parti1ulars an2 onl< a4ter 2is1o"er<9 It woul2 1ause 0ar2s0ip as t0e< too are manu4a1turers o4 5alm an2 nee2 to 7now 3ust w0at in4ormation t0e< are 5eing atta17e2 4or using9 All t0e 1onsi2erations state2 a5o"e in t0e 2is1ussion on t0e nee2 4or parti1ularisation 4or t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tions appl< eCuall< to t0is appeal9 In -ohn 5in" Co Ltd v 2il"inson 0 #nor8 *19B3+ RPC B1B t0e 2e4en2ants to a 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e a1tion soug0t parti1ulars o4 t0e in4ormation allege2 to 5e 1on4i2ential9 %0e appli1ation was ma2e 5e4ore t0e 4iling o4 t0eir 2e4en1e9 In or2ering parti1ulars: Russell LJ sai2 at ? 'ow it ma< 5e sai2 /as sai2 t0e 3u2ge@ t0at t0e 2e4en2ants 1an plea2 to t0is 1laim as it stan2s9 In one sense t0is is true9 %0e< 1an pro2u1e a series o4 2enials w0i10 woul2 2o little to 2e4ine t0e 4iel2 o4 2ispute9 $ut I t0in7 t0at in an< e"ent t0ere are 0ere spe1ial reasons 4or now or2ering t0e parti1ulars soug0t9 %0e s1ope o4 t0e 1laim as it stan2s at present is sai2 in e"i2en1e: an2 t0e statements are un1ontra2i1te2: to 1o"er t0e w0ole 4iel2 o4 t0is parti1ular manu4a1ture as a 4or5i22en 4iel29 It is in2i1ate2 in e"i2en1e: an2 t0e in2i1ation is not 1ontra2i1te2: t0at t0is 1annot 5e possi5le9 It is suggeste2 in e"i2en1e: an2 t0e suggestion is not answere2: t0at t0e generalit< o4 t0e 1laims an2 a11usations are t<pi1al o4 an una11epta5le attitu2e pre"iousl< 2emonstrate2 5< t0e plainti44s an2 t0eir asso1iate2 US 1ompan<9 Some parti1ulariDation o4 t0e 2etails o4 t0e 1omplaints 0as 5een soug0t sin1e Jul< 19G9: an2 none 0as 5een 4ort01oming9 In t0ose 1ir1umstan1es: an2 o4 1ourse e"er< 1ase must 5e 1onsi2ere2 in t0e lig0t o4 its own parti1ular 1ir1umstan1es: I 1annot 5ut 1on1lu2e t0at t0e interests o4 3usti1e 5etween t0e parties reCuire some 1on2es1ension to 2etails on t0e part o4 t0e plainti44s 5e4ore t0e 2e4en2ants are reCuire2 to appl< t0emsel"es an2 t0eir legal an2 e;pert a2"isers to t0e Cuestion o4 2e4en1e9 It will t0en 5e 7nown w0at are t0e matters w0i10 are sai2 to 5e tra2e se1rets or 1on4i2ential matter: an2 not simpl< t0e areas in w0i10 or t0e matters in respe1t o4 w0i10 it is sai2 t0at t0e plainti44s are or were so to spea7 proprietors o4 tra2e se1rets or in4ormation t0at was 1on4i2ential9 All t0is must now 5e 7nown to t0e plainti44s9 In so 4ar as t0e plainti44s6 rig0ts 0a"e 5een 5rea10e2 or in4ringe2 5< t0e 4irst 2e4en2ants: or 5< pro1urement 5< t0e se1on2 2e4en2ant: presuma5l< t0e plainti44s 0a"e at present some groun2 4or t0eir assertions in t0ose regar2s: an2 1an a22 to parti1ulars i4 later ot0er su10 groun2s emerge on 2is1o"er<9 Stamp LJ agree2 an2 state2 at ? #0ere one 4in2s a statement o4 1laim a"erring a w0ole list o4 tra2e se1rets: a"erring a 2ut< o4 1on4i2en1e in a 2e4en2ant not to 2is1lose t0em one is: until parti1ulars are gi"en: entitle2 to "iew t0e a1tion as one 2esigne2 to 4is0 out a 1ase9 An2 w0ere t0is appears to 5e t0e 1ase it is a spe1ial reason 4or or2ering parti1ulars at t0e earliest stage9

Page 20

&2mun2 (a"ies LJ put t0e matter on a 0ig0er plane 5< 1omparing t0e allegation o4 5rea10 o4 1on4i2en1e to an allegation o4 1riminal 1onspira1<9 %0e learne2 Lor2 Justi1e was o4 t0e "iew at t0at su10 a gra"e allegation o4 improper 1on2u1t reCuire2 61lear parti1ulariDation69 %0ere is t0ere4ore more reason w0ere a 2e4en1e 0as 5een 2eli"ere2: al5eit ne1essaril< in general terms: t0at t0e respon2ents 0ere gi"e parti1ulars o4 w0at t0e< sa< is 1on4i2ential in4ormation an2 0ow it 0as 5een misuse2 5< t0e appellants9 A11or2ingl<: we allow t0e appeal in respe1t o4 t0e appli1ation 4or parti1ulars an2 or2er t0at t0e respon2ents ser"e t0em on t0e appellants wit0in 1F 2a<s o4 t0is 3u2gment9 Passing o44 )) Ci"il Appeal 'o .B o4 1991 #e now return to Ci"il Appeal 'o .B o4 1991 an2 1onsi2er t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tions 5ase2 on passing o449 %0e elements o4 t0e tort o4 passing o44 0a"e 5een i2enti4ie2: an2 t0ere is no 2ispute 5etween 1ounsel on t0is point9 In /rven 2arnin" *6 v - To%nend 0 ,ons (.ull+ Ltd8 *19B9+ AC B31 Lor2 (iplo17 sai2: at p BF,: t0at it was possi5le to? 999 i2enti4< 4i"e 10ara1teristi1s w0i10 must 5e present in or2er to 1reate a "ali2 1ause o4 a1tion 4or passing o44? /1@ a misrepresentation: /,@ ma2e 5< a tra2er in t0e 1ourse o4 tra2e: /3@ to prospe1ti"e 1ustomers o4 0is or ultimate 1onsumers o4 t0e goo2s or ser"i1es supplie2 5< 0im: /F@ w0i10 is 1al1ulate2 to in3ure t0e 5usiness or goo2will o4 anot0er tra2er /in t0e sense t0at t0is is a reasona5l< 4oreseea5le 1onseCuen1e@: an2 /.@ w0i10 1auses a1tual 2amage to a 5usiness or goo2will o4 t0e tra2er 5< w0om t0e a1tion is 5roug0t or /in a Cuia timet a1tion@ will pro5a5l< 2o so9 Lor2 Eraser: at : e;presse2 t0e rele"ant prin1iples t0us? It is essential 4or t0e plainti44 in a passing o44 a1tion to s0ow at least t0e 4ollowing 4a1ts? /1@ t0at 0is 5usiness 1onsists o4: or in1lu2es: selling *in &nglan2+ a 1lass o4 goo2s to w0i10 t0e parti1ular tra2e name appliesA /,@ t0at t0e 1lass o4 goo2s is 1learl< 2e4ine2: an2 t0at in t0e min2s o4 t0e pu5li1: or a se1tion o4 t0e pu5li1: *in &nglan2:+ t0e tra2e name 2istinguis0es t0at 1lass 4rom ot0er similar goo2sA /3@ t0at 5e1ause o4 t0e reputation o4 t0e goo2s: t0ere is goo2will atta10e2 to t0e nameA /F@ t0at 0e: t0e plainti44: as a mem5er o4 t0e 1lass o4 t0ose w0o sell t0e goo2s: is t0e owner o4 goo2will *in &nglan2+ w0i10 is o4 su5stantial "alueA /.@ t0at 0e 0as su44ere2: or is reall< li7el< to su44er: su5stantial 2amage to 0is propert< in t0e goo2will 5< reason o4 t0e 2e4en2ants selling goo2s w0i10 are 4alsel< 2es1ri5e2 5< t0e tra2e name to w0i10 t0e goo2will is atta10e29 At t0e 0earing 5elow: t0e appellants 0a2 10allenge2 t0e lo1us stan2i o4 t0e respon2ents to 5ring an a1tion in passing o44 5ut t0e point was not pursue2 5e4ore us an2 we ma7e no 1omment on it9 %0e learne2 3u2ge 4oun2 t0at t0ere was a serious issue to 5e trie2 on passing o44 5< get up9 He reasone2? %0e main 1omplaint o4 t0e plainti44s 0ere is t0at t0e get)up o4 t0e Lion $alm is too similar to t0at o4 t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts9 %0e plainti44s allege t0at t0e

Page 21

get)up o4 Lion $alm pro2u1ts 1opies t0e get)up o4 t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts in t0e 4ollowing respe1ts? 2,) t0e glass 1ontainer o4 t0e Lion $alm is 0e;agonal in s0ape an2 similar in siDe: wit0 its logo at t0e 5ottom o4 t0e 1ontainerA 2,,) t0e pa17aging o4 t0e 1ontainer o4 t0e Lion $alm is similar in st<le: 1olour an2 2esign9 %0e la5el an2 t0e top)seal are o4 a 3agge2)e2ge toot0 4ormat9 %0e w0ole pa17aging is t0en seale2 5< two 1ir1ular seals 1ontaining t0e logoA 2,,,) t0e 1olour o4 t0e 6s1rew)on6 1o"er o4 t0e 0e;agonal 1ontainer o4 t0e Lion $alm is o4 t0e s0a2e o4 5ronDeA 2,v) t0e 6s1rew)on6 1o"er is similarl< em5osse2: al5eit wit0 its 2i44erent logo9 I note t0at t0ere are some 2i44eren1es in 2etail in t0e two get)ups9 $ut I 2o not t0in7 t0at t0ose 2i44eren1es are su44i1ient to a"oi2 1on4usion or 2e1eption9 %0e 2e4en2ants 0a"e not e;plaine2 w0< t0e get)up o4 t0e Lion $alm pro2u1ts 0as to 5e in so man< wa<s similar to t0ose o4 t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts9 It is not ne1essar< 4or passing)o44 t0at e"er< part o4 t0e get)up s0oul2 5e imitate29 In t0e present 1ase t0e a2option o4 a p0oneti1all< similar C0inese name 4or t0e Lion $alm 4urt0er aggra"ates t0e situation9 It is 1ommon usage to re4er to t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts 5< as7ing 4or t0em in retail outlets as 6#an Jin Iou6 an2 not t0eir 4ull titles in 8an2arin9 !4 all possi5ilities: t0e 2e4en2ants 10ose to 1all t0eir Lion $alm pro2u1ts 6#an Iin Iou69 I t0in7 our 1ase 0ere is "er< 1lose to !ec"itt 0 Colman Ltd v *orden nc *199=+ 1 #LR F91 w0i10 1on1erne2 lemon 3ui1e sol2 in <ellow plasti1 sCueeDe pa17s resem5le2 in siDe: s0ape an2 1olour o4 a natural lemon9 %0ere t0e 1ourt grante2 t0e plainti44 an in3un1tion to restrain t0e 2e4en2ant 4rom pro2u1ing lemon)s0ape2 1ontainers 4or selling lemon 3ui1e9 999 I a11ept t0at a 1are4ul pur10aser woul2 5e a5le to 2i44erentiate 5etween t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts an2 t0e Lion $alm pro2u1ts9 $ut I 2o not t0in7 t0at is an answer to an a1tion 4or passing)o44 i4 people are 2e1ei"e2 or are li7el< to 5e 2e1ei"e29 %0e o5ligation is on t0e 2e4en2ant to s0ow t0at 0e 0as ta7en steps to ensure t0at t0ere will 5e no 1on4usion9 999 Consi2ering t0e get up an2 t0e s0ape an2 siDe o4 t0e two 3ars: an2 t0e p0oneti1 similarit< in t0e C0inese names o4 t0e two pro2u1ts: I 1annot 0elp 5ut 4eel t0at t0e 2e4en2ants 0a"e 2eli5eratel< trie2 to ta7e a2"antage o4 t0e goo2will o4 t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts an2 w0at was 2one was 1al1ulate2 to ena5le a passing)o44 to ta7e pla1e9 %0is is reall< a 1ase o4 61as0ing)in6 now t0at t0e JVA is 2ue to e;pire9 %0is is all t0e more so w0en we 5ear in min2 t0at a 4airl< su5stantial proportion o4 t0e population in Singapore are C0inese)e2u1ate2 an2 Cuite a proportion o4 t0e el2erl< people in Singapore are illiterate9 Eor t0ese people I t0in7 t0e get)up is all t0at matters9 Ha"ing seen t0e 3ars in w0i10 t0e two pro2u1ts are sol2 to t0e pu5li1: I 0a"e no 2ou5t t0at t0e similarit< is li7el< to 1ause 1on4usion or: to a2opt t0e wor2s o4 #arrington J in ,ch%eppes Ltd */19=.@ ,, RPC 113+: to 1ause t0e retail "en2or to 2e1ei"e t0e ultimate pur10aser9 In s0ort t0e get)

Page 22

up o4 t0e Lion $alm pro2u1ts is 2e1epti"el< similar to t0at o4 t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts9 All t0e more so w0en it is note2 t0at t0e two pro2u1ts are manu4a1ture2: 2istri5ute2 an2 sol2 5< t0e 4irst 2e4en2ant6s group o4 1ompanies9 %0ere is no nee2 to pro"e a1tual 2e1eption? see 2hite .udson v #sian 1rgani'ation *19G.+ 8LJ 1-G9 It is su44i1ient i4 t0e e"i2en1e s0ows t0at t0ere is su10 similarit< as to 5e 1al1ulate2 to 1ause 1on4usion in t0e min2 o4 t0e pu5li19 In a 1ase w0ere passing o44 5< get up is allege2: t0e rele"ant point o4 re4eren1e is t0e point o4 sale9 It must 5e 5orne in min2 t0at at t0e point o4 sale t0e pur10aser o4 t0e 5alm sees onl< t0e outer pa17aging o4 t0e 5alm9 At t0is point: it is sai2 t0at t0e appellants 0a"e 2eli5eratel< 1opie2 t0e pa17aging o4 %iger 5alm: an2 t0e similarities allege2 0a"e 5een set out in t0e a5o"e passage 4rom t0e 3u2gment9 !n "iewing t0e outer pa17aging o4 t0e two 5alms: we 4in2 oursel"es in 5roa2 agreement wit0 t0e "iew o4 t0e learne2 3u2ge9 Apart 4rom our 2isagreement wit0 t0e learne2 3u2ge6s o5ser"ations on t0e rele"an1e o4 illitera1<: w0i10 t0is 1ourt 0as 0el2 to 5e an e"aporating 1onsi2eration in t0e Singapore o4 to2a< /see Tong )uan Food Products Pte Ltd v .oe .uat .ng Foodstuffs Pte Ltd *1991+ , 8LJ 3G1 at p 3GB@ it is 1lear t0at t0e learne2 3u2ge was entitle2 to 1ome to 0is 4in2ing o4 an argua5le 1ase t0at t0e get up o4 t0e Lion $alm pro2u1ts is 2e1epti"el< similar to t0at o4 t0e %iger $alm pro2u1ts9 Howe"er: t0ere are 4urt0er points o4 1riti1ism ma2e 5< 8r E<s0 w0i10 we s0oul2 2eal wit09 %0e 4irst relates to t0e 4orm o4 t0e or2er 5elow9 %0e 5rea2t0 o4 t0e or2er restraining t0e appellants 4rom 2ealing in >LS 5alm pro2u1ts 2i2 not in2i1ate an< appre1iation o4 t0e 4a1t t0at 2ealing in su10 pro2u1ts was onl< o53e1tiona5le i4 t0eir get)up woul2 1on4use or 2e1ei"e t0e 1onsumer into t0in7ing t0at t0e< were %iger 5alm pro2u1ts9 In 2hite .udson 0 Co v #sian 1rgani'ation8 *19G.+ 8LJ 1-G a 1ase on passing o44 5< get) up: t0e perpetual in3un1tion grante2 restraine2 t0e 2e4en2ants: t0eir ser"ants an2 agents 4rom o44ering 4or sale: selling or ot0erwise 2ealing in me2i1ate2 1oug0 sweets not manu4a1ture2 5< t0e plainti44s an2 wrappe2 wit0 t0e 2e4en2ants6 6Pe1to6 wrapper %ithout clearly distinguishing such %rapper from the plaintiffs$ $.ac"s$ %rapper9 /!ur emp0asis9@ #e agree wit0 1ounsel t0at wor2s su10 as t0e itali1iDe2 wor2s are a ne1essar< part o4 an< in3un1tion: w0et0er perpetual or interlo1utor<: grante2 in a 1ase o4 passing o44 5< get up9 %0e a5sen1e o4 t0ose wor2s in t0e present appeal 0a"e t0e e44e1t o4 pre"enting t0e appellants 4rom manu4a1turing an2 2istri5uting 5alm un2er t0e >LS la5el: w0i10 t0e respon2ents 0a"e not o53e1te2 to: an2 t0is is mu10 too wi2e an2 un2esira5le in t0e interests o4 1ompetition9 A se1on2 an2 more important point ma2e 5< 8r E<s0 was t0at t0e learne2 3u2ge erre2 in 0ol2ing t0at 2amages woul2 not 5e an a2eCuate reme2< in t0is 1ase9 He 1ite2 t0e 2e1ision in The *oots Company Ltd v #pproved Prescription ,ervices Ltd *19--+ ESR F. in support9 %0e plainti44s in t0at 1ase 0a2 4or some time sol2 t0e 2rug i5upro4en un2er t0e name 6$ru4en6 in t0e 4orm o4 magenta 1oloure2 pills o4 a parti1ular s0ape9 A4ter t0e plainti44s6 patent e;pire2: t0e 2e4en2ants wis0e2 to mar7et a generi1 "ersion o4 t0e 2rug in t0e same s0ape an2 1olour9 %0e plainti44s soug0t an interlo1utor< in3un1tion restraining t0e 2e4en2ants 4rom 2oing so9 It was 0el2 5< #0it4or2 J at 4irst instan1e t0at t0e plainti44s 0a2 an argua5le 1ase o4 passing o44 5ut t0at t0e 5alan1e o4 1on"enien1e was against t0e

Page 23

grant o4 t0e in3un1tion9 %0e learne2 3u2ge 0el2 t0at t0e plainti44s woul2 5e a2eCuatel< 1ompensate2 5< 2amages i4 t0e< su11ee2e2 in o5taining a permanent in3un1tion9 %0ere was no Cuestion o4 t0e 2e4en2ants 5eing una5le to meet an< 2amages awar2e2 an2 t0e Cuanti4i1ation o4 t0e 2amages woul2 5e 5ase2 on t0e 2e4en2ants6 re1or2s o4 t0e sales o4 t0eir pills9 !n t0e ot0er 0an2: t0e grant o4 t0e interlo1utor< in3un1tion woul2 4or1e t0e 2e4en2ants to gi"e up t0e parti1ular 2rug or to 10ange to anot0er 1olour9 In t0e 4ormer situation: t0e 2amages woul2 5e 2i44i1ult to Cuanti4< an2 in t0e latter: t0e< woul2 5e in e;treme 2i44i1ult< w0et0er to go 5a17 to t0e original 1olour or to sta< wit0 t0e new 1olour9 %0e Court o4 Appeal agree2 wit0 #0it4or2 J9 In t0e present appeal: t0e learne2 3u2ge 5elow 2istinguis0e2 t0e *oots case *19--+ ESR F. on t0e 4ollowing groun2s? 21) t0e Cualit< o4 t0e pills pro2u1e2 5< t0e two 1ompanies in t0at 1ase were t0e same: 22) t0e pills were onl< o5taina5le on pres1ription: an2 23) as t0e pills were a 1ontrolle2 2rug: t0ere was no possi5ilit< o4 t0e re4usal o4 t0e in3un1tion en1ouraging ot0er 1ompetitors 4rom entering t0e mar7et 5e4ore t0e trial9

#e woul2 respe1t4ull< 2isagree9 #0ere t0e 2ispute is 5etween two parties o4 repute an2 t0ere is no Cuestion t0at eit0er si2e woul2 5e una5le to meet an< su5seCuent awar2 o4 2amages: it is not in t0e pu5li1 interest to pre"ent 1ompetition 5etween two pro2u1ts w0i10 t0e respon2ents t0emsel"es 0a"e state2 are o4 1ompara5le Cualit<? see para 11 o4 t0e a44i2a"it o4 %an Hee C0ai 4ile2 on 19 June 199=9 %0ere is no e"i2en1e 5e4ore us w0i10 in2i1ates t0at t0e appellants woul2 not 5e a5le to 7eep a11urate re1or2s o4 t0eir sales o4 >LS 5alm9 In2ee2: in t0e a5sen1e o4 an< e"i2en1e on t0e 7eeping o4 re1or2s: a 4air in4eren1e woul2 5e t0at t0e< are 1apa5le o4 7eeping a11urate re1or2s9 %0ere woul2 5e no 2i44i1ult< wit0 t0e Cuanti4i1ation o4 2amages an2 a11or2ingl< we also 2is10arge t0e in3un1tions 5ase2 on passing o449 Costs #e now 1ome to t0e Cuestion o4 1osts9 %0e respon2ents 0a"e: 5< t0eir noti1e in Ci"il Appeal 'o .B o4 1991: appeale2 against t0e or2er o4 t0e learne2 3u2ge t0at t0e 1osts o4 t0e 0earings on t0e in3un1tions 5e in t0e 1ause9 %0e learne2 3u2ge ga"e no groun2s 4or t0e or2er presuma5l< 5e1ause su10 an or2er is t0e normal pra1ti1e o4 t0e Hig0 Court9 8r $urton 1onten2e2 t0at su10 a pra1ti1e is wrong an2 t0at t0e normal rule as to 1osts s0oul2 appl<: ie 1osts s0oul2 4ollow t0e e"ent an2: sin1e t0e respon2ents su11ee2e2 a4ter a 1onteste2 0earing: t0e< s0oul2 get 1osts or at least an or2er t0at t0eir 1osts 5e in t0e 1ause9 %0at 4orm o4 or2er is sai2 to 5e t0e normal or2er in t0e C0an1er< (i"ision o4 t0e &nglis0 Hig0 Court an2 we were re4erre2 to para ,9/1/1= o4 t0e Supreme Court Pra1ti1e 19939 #e are not in1line2 to inter4ere wit0 t0e 2e1ision o4 t0e learne2 3u2ge9 %0e Cuestion o4 1osts is plainl< one o4 2is1retion an2 t0e learne2 3u2ge 0as 4ollowe2 t0e regular pra1ti1e o4 t0e 1ourts o4 Singapore9 An interlo1utor< appli1ation 2oes not purport to 2e1i2e a matter on its merits9 %0e 2e1ision o4 t0e trial 3u2ge will 2etermine w0et0er t0e interim relie4 oug0t to 0a"e 5een grante29 In prin1iple: i4 a plainti44 su11ee2s at trial t0en 0e

Page 24

s0oul2 0a"e o5taine2 interim relie49 Similarl<: i4 a 2e4en2ant su11ee2s at trial: t0en interim relie4: i4 o5taine2: s0oul2 not 0a"e 5een grante2 against 0im9 8oreo"er: t0e pra1ti1e o4 t0e C0an1er< (i"ision is not an in"aria5le one? see ,teepleglade Ltd v ,tratford nvestments Ltd7 *19BG+ ESR 3 %0e respon2ents6 1ross)appeal in Ci"il Appeal 'o .B o4 1991 t0ere4ore 4ails9 In t0e result: t0e appellants su11ee2 in 5ot0 appeals an2 are to 0a"e t0e 1osts o4 t0eir appeals an2 t0e respon2ents6 unsu11ess4ul 1ross)appeal in t0e Ci"il Appeal 'o .B o4 19919 %0e se1urit< 2eposits 4or 5ot0 appeals are to 5e release2 to t0e appellants6 soli1itors9 %0e 1osts o4 t0e pro1ee2ings 5elow in 5ot0 appeals remain in t0e 1ause9 1rder accordingly7 Reporte2 5< %an C0uan %0<e