MONEYSMART SINGAPORE PTE. LTD. v ARTEM MUSIENKO
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tan Siong Thye |
| Charges / claim | Contract, Employment Law, Injunctions |
| Counsel | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Shook Lin & Bok LLP, Lee Eng Beng, Lee Ping (Li Ping), Liu Yulin, Swah Yeqin Shirin, Timothy Ang Wei Kiat (Hong Weijie), Yong Ying Jie |
Source: [2024] SGHC 94, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (8)
Case Significance
MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94 was a reserved judgment of the General Division of the High Court of Singapore delivered on 2 April 2024 by Tan Siong Thye SJ, in Originating Claim No 49 of 2024 (Summonses Nos 229 and 360 of 2024), following hearings on 29 January and 8 March 2024. The defendant, Artem Musienko, a former employee of the claimant MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd ("MoneySmart"), had resigned and joined CAG Regional Singapore Pte Ltd ("CAGRS"), a subsidiary of MoneyHero Limited and a rival firm of the claimant. MoneySmart sought to stop the defendant from working for CAGRS.
MoneySmart took out an ex parte summons, Summons No 229 of 2024, seeking two interim injunctions to stop the defendant from working for CAGRS, based on two covenants in the employment agreement between the parties. At the ex parte hearing on 29 January 2024, the court granted the interim injunctions with the caveat that they were not to be enforced until the defendant had been heard at the inter partes hearing and the court had determined the injunctions should be maintained. The defendant in turn took out an application to set aside the interim injunctions. The catchwords frame the issues around restraint of trade and illegality and public policy in contract, the enforceability of restrictive covenants in a contract of service under employment law, and interlocutory injunctions giving effect to restraint of trade clauses. The claimant was represented by Shook Lin & Bok LLP and the defendant by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP.
Summary
MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd sought to restrain its former employee Artem Musienko, who had resigned and joined a subsidiary of a rival firm, from working for the new employer based on a non-compete clause and a confidentiality clause in his employment agreement, while the former employee applied to set aside interim injunctions earlier granted on an ex parte basis. The General Division of the High Court considered the enforceability of the restraint of trade clauses and whether there was a good arguable case of breach. The court found the non-compete clause was not valid and enforceable, found no good arguable case that the confidentiality clause had been or would be breached, held the balance of convenience favoured the defendant, and discharged both interim injunctions.
What was MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94 about?
It was a General Division of the High Court matter, decided 2 April 2024 by Tan Siong Thye SJ, in which MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd sought interim injunctions to stop former employee Artem Musienko from working for a rival, CAG Regional Singapore Pte Ltd, based on restraint of trade covenants in his employment agreement.
What interim injunctions were granted in [2024] SGHC 94?
At an ex parte hearing on 29 January 2024 in Summons No 229 of 2024, the court granted MoneySmart two interim injunctions, subject to a caveat that they not be enforced until the defendant was heard inter partes and the court confirmed they should be maintained. Artem Musienko then applied to set them aside.
Cases Cited (17)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 94)