RAFIZUDDIN BIN RAMLY v FLOWBIRD MALAYSIA SDN BHD

w-02ncvcw-741-05-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 5 November 2025 • W-02(NCvC)(W)-741-05/2024 • 43 min read
20 cases cited (0 SG, 20 foreign)

Catchwords

These were related appeals involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential information. The Respondent, Flowbird (formerly known as Cale Malaysia Sdn Bhd), alleged that its former employees, Alain Taher Osterlind and Rafizuddin, had disclosed its confidential information to IEM, a Swiss-incorporated company engaged in a similar business. The information was allegedly used by IEM to secure parking solution projects in New Zealand, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The learned Judicial Commissioner found in favour of Flowbird. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the High Court, holding that the evidence established the misuse of confidential information and breach of fiduciary duty by Rafizuddin and IEM.

Practice Areas

These were related appeals involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential information. The Respondent, Flowbird (formerly known as Cale Malaysia Sdn Bhd), alleged that its former employees, Alain Taher Osterlind and Rafizuddin, had disclosed its confidential information to IEM, a Swiss-incorporated company engaged in a similar business. The information was allegedly used by IEM to secure parking solution projects in New Zealand, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The learned Judicial Commissioner found in favour of Flowbird. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the High Court, holding that the evidence established the misuse of confidential information and breach of fiduciary duty by Rafizuddin and IEM.

Judges (3)

Alwi bin Abdul Wahab Coram Lim Chong Fong Delivered Supang Lian Coram

Counsel (7)

Saiful, Roger & Co. Firm Shearn Delamore & Co. Firm K. Shanti Mogan Counsel Respondent Nur Afiqah Bt Mohd Ashriee Counsel Appellant Nur Sabreena Jazzmyn Melody Binti Mohd Hassan Ali Abdullah Counsel Appellant Siti Nur Athirazatti Rohizad Counsel Appellant Yiew De Quan Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

FLOWBIRD MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd Respondent Rafizuddin bin Ramly Appellant

Case Significance

RAFIZUDDIN BIN RAMLY v FLOWBIRD MALAYSIA SDN BHD is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated November 5, 2025 (citation: w-02ncvcw-741-05-2024). <p>Rafizuddin bin Ramly, a former employee of Flowbird Malaysia, appealed the High Court's finding that he breached his fiduciary duty and misused confidential information by disclosing it to IEM SA, a competitor. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that Rafizuddin and IEM used Flowbird's confidential information to secure parking solution projects in New Zealand, Indonesia, and Malaysia.</p> The panel comprised Alwi bin Abdul Wahab, Lim Chong Fong and Supang Lian, with Lim Chong Fong delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: K. Shanti Mogan (counsel for respondent), Nur Afiqah Bt Mohd Ashriee (counsel for appellant), Nur Sabreena Jazzmyn Melody Binti Mohd Hassan Ali Abdullah (counsel for appellant), Siti Nur Athirazatti Rohizad (counsel for appellant), Yiew De Quan (counsel for respondent).

Summary

Rafizuddin bin Ramly, a former employee of Flowbird Malaysia, appealed the High Court's finding that he breached his fiduciary duty and misused confidential information by disclosing it to IEM SA, a competitor. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that Rafizuddin and IEM used Flowbird's confidential information to secure parking solution projects in New Zealand, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

What was the outcome of RAFIZUDDIN BIN RAMLY v FLOWBIRD MALAYSIA SDN BHD?

<p>Rafizuddin bin Ramly, a former employee of Flowbird Malaysia, appealed the High Court's finding that he breached his fiduciary duty and misused con...

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
s 58

Cases Cited (20)

UK (3)
[1965] 1 WLR 1293 [1967] 2 All ER 415 [2014] 1 WLR 2600
MY (17)
[1964] MLJ 92 [1965] 2 MLJ 151 [1976] 1 MLJ 151 [1994] 3 MLJ 777 [1996] 3 CLJ 163 [2010] 5 CLJ 32 [2010] 8 MLJ 297 [2011] 2 MLJ 597 [2015] MLJ 222 [2016] 3 CLJ 676 [2016] 5 MLJ 91 [2016] 7 CLJ 380 [2020] 10 CLJ 1 [2021] 5 MLJ 435 [2021] 7 MLJ 419 [2023] 11 MLJ 581 [2024] 10 CLJ 432