RE: Bake is Cooked27 May 2026 11:48
Look into legal distinction of law in confidence Singapore high courts.
Its much narrower than what they portrayed in the 13th Feb update, the original court filing showed employment but then pivoted to law in confidence a much easier charge to prove only 2/3
Stage 1: The Plaintiff’s Burden
The plaintiff (the company suing, such as Semnet) only needs to prove two elements
The information has the necessary quality of confidence (it is secret, proprietary, and not in the public domain).
The information was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence (e.g., via an employment contract, non-disclosure agreement, or an obvious professional relationship).
Stage 2: The Shifted Burden (The Singapore Distinction)Under traditional law, the plaintiff also had to prove that the defendant misused the data to the plaintiff's detriment. Singapore eliminated this hurdle.
Presumption of Breach, Once Stage 1 is proven, the Singapore court automatically presumes a breach of confidence.
Defendant Must Prove Innocence: The legal burden completely shifts to the defendant. The defendant must actively prove that their conscience was not impacted—meaning they must prove they did not access, copy, or exploit the data.
GST changed it to LAw in confidenc eot make it a TORT equitable claim.
Corporate litigation (like the Semnet vs. GSTechnologies dispute), claims for a breach of the Law of Confidence are often treated as distinct equity or tort claims.
If a defendant argues that the dispute should be paused (stayed) and moved to private arbitration because of an arbitration clause in a commercial contract, the plaintiff will often counter-argue that a Breach of Confidence is an independent, non-contractual wrong that sits outside the scope of that specific contract's arbitration clause, requiring it to be heard publicly in the High Court of Singapore.
But GST already RNS'd to us they want to pursue former sellers for breaches of SPA lol
Sign In
Follow the stocks
