By Selina Lum

WELL-KNOWN education services provider, The Shichida Method, has sued five former employees - including the brother of one of its owners - for conspiring to take away its business.

The centre, owned by husband-and-wife team Alvin and Jocelyn Khoo, is a franchisee of the teaching method established in Japan by the late Professor Makoto Shichida and the Shichida Educational Institute.

Its programme for children aged three months to 12 years supposedly helps them develop photographic memory, music and artistic skills as well as the ability to do rapid calculations. In 2007, its turnover reached $7.2 million.

The current dispute arose after the centre fired its former general manager and acting chief operations officer, Mr David Ng Pak Siong - Mrs Khoo's younger brother - in June 2007 for allegedly misappropriating money.

According to the centre, Mr Ng had 'improperly retained' more than $160,000 paid by its customers. No police report was made.

Mr Ng then set up his own company, allegedly poached instructors and parents, and tried to persuade the Japanese institute to work with him.

The Shichida Method then sued Mr Ng, his company, Trio Centre, and four of its instructors. It alleged that the defendants had breached their duty of confidentiality to the centre and conspired to set up a rival firm to get the franchise for the teaching method.

Its suit, which began in the High Court yesterday, seeks an order to stop the defendants from using confidential information.

The centre's lawyer, Mr Ong Ying Ping, said Mr Ng was caught on camera removing documents from a cabinet in the centre's office shortly after being fired. Then, four months after his exit, several instructors resigned.

Mr Ng then contacted some parents whose children were enrolled at the centre, inviting them to preview his brain development programme, the lawyer said.

The court heard that in January last year, Mr Ng and a trainer met the daughter-in-law of Prof Shichida in Japan, and said he wanted to improve on the teaching method and sought the institute's support.

A private investigator attended one of Mr Ng's previews and got footage of the trainers offering The Shichida Method's curriculum to parents.

The defendants, represented by Senior Counsel Hri Kumar, argue that the suit is misconceived and an attempt to 'crush competition'. The defence contends that the suit does not pinpoint what information was taken and why it was confidential.

An employer cannot stop an ex-employee from using the skill and knowledge he has gained during employment, says the defence.

The defence also argues that Mr Ng had no employment contract and was not subject to any obligation of confidentiality. And as for the trainers, the secrecy clause in their contracts is not enforceable because it does not spell out what information is considered a trade secret or confidential, the defence claims.

This article was first published in The Straits Times.