NETINFINIUM SOLUTIONS Sdn Bhd

On the court record

Illustrates how affiliated entities in a group act together as co-plaintiffs in trade-secrets litigation fought largely through interlocutory manoeuvre.

Netinfinium Solutions Sdn Bhd appears in the reported judgments as one of the affiliated companies in a technology group that jointly pursued a trade-secrets and employment dispute, with matters in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). It is named among the plaintiffs and applicants in proceedings against former personnel and competing entities alleged to have misappropriated the group's confidential business information.

The heart of the group's case, as argued on appeal, lay in claims for copyright infringement, breach of confidence, the misuse of confidential information and trade secrets, breach of employment contracts and the duties of fidelity, fiduciary duty and trust, conspiracy and dishonest assistance, unlawful interference with trade, and conversion. The bundling of these causes of action is the established route by which a group seeks to prevent and remedy the taking of proprietary material by departing staff, and the company's presence among the plaintiffs reflects its interest in confidential assets shared across the group.

The reported reasoning is largely procedural. One matter concerned a notice to produce documents, the court considering whether it had jurisdiction to set the notice aside, whether the notice was an abuse of process, and whether it circumvented the completed discovery process and a document-classification framework, under sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act 1950 and Orders 34 and 92 of the Rules of Court 2012 — a contest over the proper limits of the parties' disclosure obligations. Another arose from a judicial-commissioner-led mediation in which broad settlement terms were recorded, but where the parties disagreed on the draft consent judgment the court reviewed the audio-video recording of the mediation to decide the agreed version, and the sealed consent judgment was then challenged on grounds distinct from the usual fraud, mistake or total failure of consideration. Across the decisions, the company illustrates how affiliated entities in a group act together as co-plaintiffs in trade-secrets litigation and how such disputes are fought largely through interlocutory manoeuvre.