In the ground-breaking case of Arthur J Gallagher Services
UK Limited and others v. Skriptchenko  EWHC 603, the
High Court has granted a mandatory injunction for interim relief
purposes, including an order that confidential information on the
defendants' computers belonging to Arthur J Gallagher
(Gallagher) be deleted.
Mr Skriptchenko worked for Gallagher until July 2014. In
February 2015, he started work for Portsoken Limited, a competitor
of Gallagher. Gallagher suspected that Mr Skriptchenko had
wrongfully used its confidential information and brought a claim
against him and Portsoken. It was admitted that Mr Skriptchenko had
taken a client list from Gallagher and that Portsoken had used that
information to approach over 300 of Gallagher's clients.
Following a successful application for a mandatory injunction
ordering Mr Skriptchenko to deliver up all his electronic devices
for inspection, and Portsoken to permit Gallagher's forensic IT
experts to access all of its computer systems to search for
information belonging to Gallagher, 4,000 documents were disclosed,
which showed that other directors and employees of Portsoken were
misusing Gallagher's confidential information.
The documents included a particularly notable email from the
chairman of Portsoken to one of its directors, which said:
"As I mentioned to Andrew, I don't think you can
formally put these in any presentation as we would obviously be
breaching confidentiality but would suggest that we keep in our
back pocket to show on a nudge nudge wink wink basis to interested
As such, Gallagher amended its claim to add another five
individuals as defendants, and applied for a further mandatory
injunction to allow them to:
inspect and take images from all of the defendants'
computers and electronic devices; and
delete any confidential information belonging to Gallagher
which was found on them.
The court's decision
Whilst the court could find no previous authority for ordering
the destruction of relevant material, it felt justified in doing so
because the defendants had admitted using Gallagher's
confidential information and the court found that the evidence
showed that they could not be trusted to seek out and delete the
material themselves. The court was fairly scathing of the
defendants in its judgment, noting that the material disclosed by
the defendants showed a "high degree of subterfuge" in
using Gallagher's confidential material.
This case demonstrates how far the courts may be willing to go
when it comes to breaches of confidence. However, it should be
noted that the order was made subject to a number of assurances,
including one that copies of the imaging of the devices would be
preserved so that, if material might subsequently be found to have
been wrongly removed, it could be preserved.
Each application for an injunction will of course turn on its
facts, and this was a very severe case of misuse of confidential
information, where it appears there was a high degree of collusion
at the most senior levels of the second defendant. However, where
an employer does wish to make an application for a mandatory
injunction for the destruction of confidential information, it
should consider whether the defendant's employment contract
contains any provisions dealing with the deletion of information,
as this could potentially influence a court in favour of granting
Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A
top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm
is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent
and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways.
Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the
communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows
that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully
completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business
challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons'
global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local,
national and global needs of private and public clients of any size
in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
You are cordially invited to our workshop on processing of employees’ personal data in light of the new EU Regulation on Personal Data Protection (GDPR). The meeting is organized by Dentons together with the American Chamber of Commerce in Poland.
Dentons will hold a Competition Breakfast Seminar on February 28, 2017 titled: Rebates and discounts under EU competition law – lessons of the Intel case. Renowned competition lawyer James Venit from Dentons’ Brussels office will be joining co-heads Tihamér Tóth and Tünde Gönczöl of Dentons Budapest’s
You are cordially invited to a practical seminar on private antitrust enforcement in light of the soon to be implemented Damages Directive, which we address to the banking and finance sector. During the seminar we will present new tools designed for cartel damages litigation in light of fast forwarding the legislative process in Poland from a lawyer’s and an economist’s perspective. We will discuss examples of private antitrust litigation from a jurisdiction where the system is already effective and consider whether third party litigation funding is an option in Poland. All these points will help you identify potential claims against other market players and prepare a defense strategy against private enforcement claims targeting your institution.
Everyone has sympathy for employees who are genuinely unwell. When advising employers about employees suffering from stress, various medical conditions and resultant absence, it is these words that come up again and again.
In our article published in HR Zone, we consider the introduction of the new rules on regulatory references which come into force on 7 March 2017 and the practical steps that employers must take to comply...
Most of us know the difference between being employed and being self-employed (or at least we think we do). And in everyday laymen's terms, the difference is relatively straightforward and obvious – if you are employed, you work for someone else and, if you are self-employed, you ‘work for yourself'.
This coming year looks to be another busy one with more significant employment law changes coming into force and we have highlighted some of the key changes, which range from the introduction of gender pay...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).