I.

The Party Affirming this Affidavit In Support of Producing Documents

I, Tommy Pang of Bonsai Garden Pte Ltd do affirm as follows:

1. I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Claimant and am duly authorised to make this

affidavit on their behalf. The facts herein are true to the best of personal knowledge

and beliefs based on the facts known to me by way of the papers, documents and

records of the Claimant save where the contrary is stated.

2. At all material times, the Claimant is Bonsai Gardens Pte Ltd, a private education

business incorporated in Singapore and the Defendant(s) are Charles Lee and Sequoia

Tree Pte Ltd, respectively.

3. I have perused a copy of the List of Documents served on behalf of the Defendant(s)

and in my belief the same does not disclose all the documents that have been in the

Defendant’s possession, custody and power relating to the matters in dispute.

4. I verily believe that the Defendant(s) have control over certain documents, without

which, the Claimant would be severely prejudiced in the preparation and conduct of

their claim in the action herein.

5. The grounds for an application for an order of the production of requested documents

from the Defendant(s) are stated within this affidavit of support of the production of

requested documents.
II. Discovery Application

A. Discovery of Educational Materials of Sequoia for Different Subjects

6. Pursuant to the development of Sequoia as a private education company and the

Defendant’s ideation of its teaching framework and services, he ought to have

curated some educational materials for the various subjects offered. As of 25 August

2023, the first Defendant’s post on LinkingUs with the other Sequoia employees was

explicitly captioned based on their preparation of teaching materials for Sequoia's first

semester.

7. Since Sequoia's website expressly mentioned the start of their classes in January 2024,

it can be reasonably inferred that the Defendant(s) would begin planning their tutoring

structure and the creation of teaching materials a few months before Sequoia's official

launch.

8. Additionally, given that Sequoia’s intended to launch in October 2023, it is likely that

the first Defendant had already prepared the relevant teaching content.

9. Therefore, it is likely that the first Defendant had developed the relevant educational

materials of Sequoia, as a result it was sufficiently within his control at all material

times.
10. I verily believe that this document presents to be of relevance to the Claimant’s claims

concerning the breach of confidentiality under Clause 6.1 and the non-competition

clause under Clause 8.1 (a).

11. Following the Employment Agreement (Annex A) between the first Defendant and

the Claimant, the first Defendant was obligated to maintain strict confidentiality of the

Claimant’s information, including the teaching materials under Clause 6.1.

12. The educational materials of Sequoia are of relevance as they would allow for the

verification of whether the Defendant(s) used the Claimant’s confidential teaching

materials for preparing their own content. Therefore, this document would be

pertinent in demonstrating the misuse of confidential information by the Defendant(s)

in breach of Clause 6.1.

13. In respect of the non-compete clause under 8.1(a), the first Defendant remains

obligated to refrain from furthering the interests of a competing business in the private

education industry during employment and eighteen months after termination.

14. Through Sequoia's educational materials, it can be reasonably established that he had

undertaken preparatory steps towards the development of Sequoia’s operations during

his employment with the Claimant and within eighteen months after termination. By

engaging in the preparation of educational materials for Sequoia, it can be likely

shown that the first Defendant acted in breach of Clause 8.1 (a).
15. In light of the aforementioned reasons, the missing educational materials of Sequoia

would form part of the necessary documentary evidence that will determine whether

or not the Defendant(s) did in fact breach Clause 6.1 and 8.1(a).

16. Without the educational materials which Sequoia has developed, the Claimant would

be unable to prove that the Defendant(s) hinged upon and plagiarised the confidential

teaching content belonging to the Claimant, as well as the Defendant’s involvement in

the furtherance of a rival business venture through Sequoia, during his employment

and shortly after termination.

17. Therefore, the educational materials of Sequoia are deemed necessary, as the absence

thereof would be prejudicial to the Claimant’s claims relating to the breach of

confidentiality and non-competition.

B. WhatsApp Correspondences between Charles Lee and Augustine Goh, Michael The

and Victoria Boh, for the period from May 2023 to July 2023

18. Given that some of the Claimant’s employees resigned from the Company and

secured employment with the second Defendant upon the influence of the first

Defendant, it is reasonably expected that that the first Defendant had control of the

respective WhatsApp correspondences with the employees entailing any persuasion.

19. The first Defendant’s WhatsApp correspondence with the Claimant’s employee, Vera,

as of May 2023 revealed messages wherein he attempted to persuade her into

resigning from the Claimant company and joining Sequoia, all while he was still
 employed by the Claimant. Hence, it is likely that he would have contacted the other

employees, including Augustine, Michael, and Victoria on the same messaging

platform, i.e., WhatsApp, with the correspondence pertaining to the termination of

their employment with the Claimant.

20. Since these WhatsApp exchanges occurred on his phone and could be readily

retrieved/ accessed, it is likely that he was also in material control of the WhatsApp

chat history with the other employees spanning from May to July 2023.

21. Therefore, since the correspondence was on the first Defendant’s phone and

WhatsApp account, he had control over the chat history with the Claimant’s ex-

employees.

22. I verily believe that this document is of relevance to the Claimant’s claims regarding

the breach of non-compete and non-solicitation under clause 8.1(a) and (b) of the

Employment Agreement for reasons laid out below.

23. By way of the WhatsApp correspondence between the first Defendant and other

employees from May to July 2023, it would be evident that the first Defendant had

begun ideating and scheming to establish Sequoia, to the extent of recruiting

employees for its operation.

24. Hence, the document entailing the WhatsApp chat history with the employees could

likely demonstrate the first Defendant’s involvement in starting a competing business

termination.

25. Moreover, the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the first Defendant and the

employees would similarly reveal his attempts to instigate them into terminating their

employment with the Claimant, with the intention of recruiting them at Sequoia.

Hence, the said document is relevant in establishing the breakdown of the employees’

relationship with the Claimant. T

26. Therefore, I verily assert that the missing WhatsApp correspondences would be

considered as relevant documentary evidence in proving the breach of Clause 8.1 (a)

and (b).

27. Without the necessary WhatsApp chat history, the Claimant would be unable to show

that the Defendant(s) did in fact begin curating the operations of Sequoia with the

intention of hiring potential employees belonging to the Claimant company by way of

soliciting and persuading them. Thus, the correspondences within the Defendant’s

control are necessary for the Claimant to substantiate their claims fairly.

C. Customer List of Sequoia Tree as of October 2023

28. As per the second Defendant’s website, Sequoia had already begun accepting

registrations for its lessons beginning in January 2024. Moreover, given Sequoia’s

official launch in 2023, it is likely that the first Defendant has been contacted by

customers and secured a set of clientele.

inferred that the first Defendant has materialised the registrations and curated it into a

list of customers. Therefore, the Defendant(s) are said to be in control of their list of

the customers.

30. I verily believe that this document is relevant in order to substantiate the claim

relating to the breach of the non-solicitation under Clause 8.1 (c) of the Employment.

As pleaded earlier, the Defendant(s) acted in breach of this clause by contacting the

Claimant’s clients and persuading them to switch over to Sequoia.

31. By way of Sequoia’s updated and latest customer list as of October 2023, the

Claimant would be able to identify an overlap between its own existing customers

versus Sequoia’s customers. Thus, this document would be relevant to the claim

herein, as it would establish that the Defendant(s) indeed poached the Claimant’s

students over to Sequoia for building their own clientele and business which was in

breach of Clause 8.1(c).

32. Therefore, I verily believe that the document entailing a list of Sequoia’s customers as

of October 2023 would make up for the documentary evidence necessary in

establishing that the first Defendant breached Clause 8.1(c) by soliciting the

Claimant’s customers to join Sequoia.

33. Without the said document, the Claimant would be unable to show that the first

Defendant persuaded the Claimant’s students to register for its lessons once it is
 officially launched and hence terminate their relationship with the Claimant. The

absence thereof would be prejudicial to the Claimant’s claim about the Defendant’s

breach of his non-solicitation obligations.

D. Email and WhatsApp Correspondence between Charles Lee, Chris Koh and Xavier

Tan for the period of April 2023 to June 2023

34. The first Defendant commenced scheming to establish Sequoia by exchanging emails

with the other two co-founders, Chris Koh and Xavier Tan. As seen in “Annex A”,

the first Defendant used his personal email address (CLee@[Link]) to devise

Sequoia's establishment with Chris and Koh.

35. Thus, indicating that he would have full control and access to any further email

correspondences for April and May 2023, as well as after his resignation from the

Claimant company in June 2023.

36. Similarly, the first Defendant’s agreeableness to continue the ideation over WhatsApp

(Annex A) implies that he had communicated with Chris and Xavier over WhatsApp

on both private and group chat. Given that the WhatsApp chats were on the first

Defendant’s phone, they were easily accessible to him and hence in his control.

37. Therefore, it is likely that the first Defendant had control over the WhatsApp

correspondence between himself, Chris and Xavier.

control of both the email and WhatsApp correspondences exchanged between the

parties ranging from April 2023 to June 2023.

39. As pleaded earlier, the Claimant claims that the first Defendant breached his non-

compete obligation under Clause 8.1(a) by engaging in the creation of Sequoia’s

operations while still employed by the Claimant and within eighteen months after

terminating his employment. Hence, I verily believe that the email and WhatsApp

correspondences between the first Defendant, Chris and Xavier are material to this

claim.

40. Within the list of documents provided by the first Defendant, the email

correspondences are only limited to the emails exchanged between the three co-

founders as of 19 April 2023. Further email correspondences prove relevant as they

could likely reveal any further actions taken by the Defendant for the development of

Sequoia during his employment with the Claimant before his resignation on 1 June

2023.

41. In addition, the reference to the formation of a WhatsApp group (Annex A) reveals

that any correspondence exchanged between the parties on private chat or the group

chat would pertain to further discussions on Sequoia’s development. Given the first

Defendant’s intentions of finalising the company name and taking preparatory steps to

establish Sequoia's operations, it is likely that the WhatsApp chats between the co-

founders entail greater planning.

well within his capacity as an employee under the Claimant and shortly after

terminating his employment is likely evident from the email and WhatsApp

correspondences between April 2023 and June 2023.

43. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I verily assert that the said documents would be of

relevance to support the claim regarding the breach of Clause 8.1(a).

44. By virtue of the first Defendant’s failure to provide the necessary documents

constituting the full extent of email correspondence and WhatsApp chats between the

three co-founders, the Claimant would suffer prejudice in proving the claim stated

above.

45. Without the missing email and WhatsApp correspondence, the Claimant would be

unable to prove that the first Defendant acted in violation of his duties as an employee

by engaging in the furtherance of a competing business.

E. Email and WhatsApp Correspondences between Charles Lee, Chris Koh and

Xavier Tan in May 2023 about their discussions on the Bali Trip

46. In view of the first Defendant’s business trip to Bali with the other two co-founders of

Sequoia, Chris and Xavier, it is likely that it was for the purpose of substantially

conceptualising the operations of Sequoia. Furthermore, since the first Defendant had
 taken leave from 2 to 6 May 2023 for his business retreat, the co-founders ought to

have taken further steps towards the establishment of Sequoia during this time.

47. Given that the first Defendant resigned on 1 June 2023 and announced his

directorship of Sequoia on 15 June 2023 which was approximately a month after his

Bali trip, it is likely that three co-founders had undertaken careful planning and

discussions to establish Sequoia. Presumably, there would be correspondences

between the first Defendant, Chris and Xavier entailing their preliminary discussions

from the trip.

48. Pursuant to their earlier mode of correspondence on email and WhatsApp, it is likely

that the consolidation and compilation of any meeting minutes, documents and

discussions during the Bali trip would be through the first Defendant’s personal email

and WhatsApp.

49. Therefore, it is likely that any exchange of emails and WhatsApp correspondences

between the three co-founders as of May 2023 during the trip, that particularly

entailed the development of Sequoia, were under sufficient control of the first

Defendant.

50. As disclosed by the pleadings, the Claimant seeks issue with the first Defendant’s

breach of the Clause 6.1 concerning confidentiality and his non-compete obligations

under the duty of good faith and fidelity.

51. The email and WhatsApp correspondences in relation to the first Defendant’s

discussions with Chris and Xavier to build Sequoia’s framework on the Bali trip are
 material to this issue as it reveals his failure to abide by the duties owed to the

Claimant.

52. Considering that the first Defendant reproduced three copies of confidential teaching

guides under the Bonsai Way System for the purpose of sharing it with Chris and

Xavier on the Bali trip, he likely intended to use lesson plans to curate Sequoia's

teaching framework. The follow up discussions between the co-founders could

presumably be over email and WhatsApp, comprising the content of their ideations.

53. By way of the first Defendant’s duplication and disclosure of the Claimant’s teaching

guides, the email and WhatsApp correspondence between the three co-founders as of

May 2023 would likely entail discussions concerning any preparatory steps to

establish Sequoia.

54. This would be relevant to prove that the first Defendant did in fact breach

confidentiality by misusing and capitalising on the teaching guides to develop

Sequoia's teaching structure.

55. Provided that the first Defendant assumed a position of seniority at the Claimant

company and was part of a close-knit team of employees, he ought to have assumed

greater responsibility to act in the Claimant’s best interests and remain loyal to the

company.

56. The first Defendant’s conduct of taking leave in May 2023 for a business retreat to

Bali with the intent of orchestrating the launch of Sequoia with Chris and Xavier

severely interferes with his obligation to act in good faith. This is because he was still
 employed by the Claimant company and was reasonably expected to honour the

operations of the Claimant by refraining from scheming with the other two co-founder

to develop a competing business through the improper use of confidential teaching

guides.

57. Therefore, I verily assert that the email and WhatsApp correspondence as of May

2023 is of relevance because it reveals discussions that entail preparatory steps taken

by the first Defendant, constituting substantive actions to engage in a competing

business that would be detrimental to the Claimant.

58. By way of the aforementioned reasons, the email and WhatsApp correspondences as

of May 2023 pertaining to the Bali trip form a necessary part of