HOMECROWD SDN BHD v Kevin Chew Tze Kenn
Catchwords
[1] The Appellant/Plaintiff appeals against the decision of the Sessions Court that dismissed the Appellant’s claim against the Respondent/Defendant for breach of Engagement of Consultancy Agreement (Consultancy Agreement). This Court allows the appeal and the reasons are as deliberated. For ease of reference, the parties will be referred as they were, in the Sessions Court. [2] It is trite law that the Plaintiff must prove its case as provided under section 101 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, once the Plaintiff had adduced prima facie evidence of a breach of confidential information, the evidential burden shifted to the Defendant to rebut and refute. [3] Therefore, the Plaintiff must prove that the information is a confidential information, and that the Defendant had breached his Consultancy Agreement, and that the Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff but had breached that duty while he was employed by the Plaintiff. [4] the breach of his fiduciary obligations includes failing to complete key platform features and not properly handing over work after termination. Based on the above deliberations, the appeal is allowed with costs.
Practice Areas
1 The Appellant/Plaintiff appeals against the decision of the Sessions Court that dismissed the Appellant’s claim against the Respondent/Defendant for breach of Engagement of Consultancy Agreement (Consultancy Agreement). This Court allows the appeal and the reasons are as deliberated. For ease of reference, the parties will be referred as they were, in the Sessions Court. 2 It is trite law that the Plaintiff must prove its case as provided under section 101 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, once the Plaintiff had adduced prima facie evidence of a breach of confidential information, the evidential burden shifted to the Defendant to rebut and refute. 3 Therefore, the Plaintiff must prove that the information is a confidential information, and that the Defendant had breached his Consultancy Agreement, and that the Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff but had breached that duty while he was employed by the Plaintiff. 4 the breach of his fiduciary obligations includes failing to complete key platform features and not properly handing over work after termination. Based on the above deliberations, the appeal is allowed with costs.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
HOMECROWD SDN BHD v Kevin Chew Tze Kenn is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 2, 2025 (citation: wa-12bcy-1-05-2024). The case was decided by Suzana binti Muhamad Said.
What was the outcome of HOMECROWD SDN BHD v Kevin Chew Tze Kenn?
HOMECROWD SDN BHD v Kevin Chew Tze Kenn is a High Court decision dated March 2, 2025. The case was heard by Suzana binti Muhamad Said. See the full judgment for details.