1. In this suit, the plaintiffs alleged that their former employees and directors, together with other parties were in breach of their fiduciary duties as such when they diverted the plaintiffs business to the third defendant which was incorporated as a vehicle for that wrongful purpose.

2. The principal directors/defendants commenced a winding-up petition against each of the plaintiffs in retaliation. The winding-up petitions have been dealt with in my grounds of decision dated 22 March 2001.

3. In respect of this suit, the defendants consented to judgment in terms of a draft consent order dated 14 March 2001. The terms set out, inter alia, as follows:

"1. The 1^st Defendant is liable to the 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs for the breaches of fiduciary duties owed to the 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs and the 3^rd and 6^th Defendants are liable to the 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs for knowingly and/or intentionally assisting, facilitating, co-operating, abetting and/or acquiescing in the breaches of fiduciary duties by the 1^st Defendant.

2. The 2^nd Defendant is liable to the 2^nd Plaintiffs for the breaches of fiduciary duties owed to the 2^nd Plaintiffs and the 3^rd and 6^th Defendants are liable to the 2^nd Plaintiffs for knowingly and/or intentionally assisting, facilitating, co-operating, abetting and/or acquiescing in the breaches of fiduciary duties by the 2^nd Defendant.

3. The 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 6^th Defendants are to pay the Plaintiffs costs incurred with respect to the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 6^th Defendants in this action, to be agreed, if not taxed."

4. In view of the consent judgment, and the concession in respect of the role of the third defendant in the breach of facilitation of the breach of fiduciary duty of the other defendants concerned, it must follow that the injunction against the third defendant must be continued as a permanent one.

Choo Han Teck

Judicial Commissioner