Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA 

 

 

Nuong Cong Tran and Tien Tan Nguyen and

Cavina Trading Limited, a body corporate (Plaintiffs)

 

-and-

 

Hieu Nguyen and N & N Electric Motor Specialists Limited, a body corporate (Defendants)

 

Justice Douglas L. MacLellan                   Halifax, Nova Scotia                                                                          S.H. 135242

 

                                                         L I B R A R Y     S H E E T

 

                                                   [Cite: Tran v. Nguyen , 2002 NSSC 191]

 

HEARD:           May 27, 28, 29, 30, 2002 and June 3, 4, 5, 6, 2002   DECISION:       July 26, 2002

 

WRITTEN RELEASE:   July 26, 2002

 

SUBJECT:                               Civil Law - Plaintiffs claim based on breach of fiduciary duty.

 

SUMMARY:                             Plaintiffs were two of the three shareholders in Cavina Trading Limited. Personal defendant was the other shareholder.  The company was formed by them to do import-export business with Viet Nam.  Defendant had his own company and following a dispute with plaintiffs about how business activities were to be conducted started doing export business in Viet Nam through his own company.  Plaintiffs claim he was in breach of his fiduciary duty to them by using contacts he made while working for Cavina Trading Limited to benefit himself and his company.

 

 

ISSUE:                         Did personal defendant breach his fiduciary duties to his former partners?

 

RESULT:                                  Plaintiffs proved that contracts entered into by defendants were result of contacts made while the defendant was working for Cavina Trading Limited. Damages awarded based on profits realized by defendants on these export contracts.

 

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT’S DECISION, QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT FROM THE COVER SHEET.  THE FULL COURT DECISION CONSISTS OF 27 PAGES.

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.