Would a technical compliance of a court order suffice to discharge oneโs obligations under the order?
We represented the plaintiff In ๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐๐ข ๐๐๐ฎ๐ญ๐ ๐ ๐จ๐จ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฏ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ฐ๐๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ [๐๐๐๐] ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐, where the Singapore High Court answered the question in the negative. In the case, the plaintiff and the defendants were in the food and beverage business. We successfully assisted the plaintiff to obtain an order of contempt against the defendants for the latterโs failure to comply with the substance / spirit of several court orders. The court orders required, among other things, the defendants to cease using the plaintiffโs drink recipes and confidential information, such as product standards and design, branding, store get-up and design, staff training, and store operations.
In an attempt to comply with the court orders, the defendants made minor changes to their drink recipes but the main ingredients of the beverages were substantially the same as the plaintiffโs drink recipes. In finding that the defendants failed to comply with the court orders, the Singapore High Court noted that it would undermine โthe spirit of the [court orders] to allow the defendants to use the substance of the recipes but make only minor changes to โtechnicallyโ comply with the [court orders]โ.
This case shows that the Singapore courts would adopt a substance over form approach when determining whether a party has complied with court orders. You can read the case at https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGHC_149.
If you find yourself in a similar situation, please feel free to contact our team at Coleman Street Chambers LLC to discuss your case and learn more about your legal options.
