The defendant resigned and located work with just one of the claimant’s competitors. Soon immediately after her resignation, the claimant found that the defendant experienced sent 3 e-mails to her own e-mail account prior to leaving the firm. The e-mails worried:

* Shows she experienced created to the claimant’s consumers

* Feedback which shoppers had supplied in relation to the claimant’s companies and

* Charges of the claimant’s items.

The claimant was of the viewpoint that the information contained in the e-mails was private and hence violated the terms of the defendant’s agreement of employment. The claimant confronted the defendant with its discovery.

The defendant claimed that she had despatched the e-mails to her own e-mail account in mistake, and made available to let the claimant check out her personal e-mail account to present that she had not breached the conditions of her deal. The claimant tried using to persuade the defendant to continue to be in its work, but was unsuccessful.

The claimant then instructed its solicitors to compose to the defendant alleging that the defendant experienced breached the conditions of her employment which amounted to breach of self-assurance. The claimant also asked for the return of all its materials which were in the defendant’s possession. The defendant replied to the letter stating that the e-mails were not sent to any person else, and that when the mistake had been discovered, she had not even opened them.

The claimant did not answer to her letter. They instead issued proceedings towards her and applied for an interim injunction. They alleged that the sending of the e-mails to her individual account amounted to her ‘using’ confidential information and facts in contravention to her contractual obligations. They also alleged that by her failing to quickly return their resources, she experienced further more breached the conditions of her contract.

The claim was dismissed. The courtroom held the the place the e-mails experienced remained unopened the private details had not been ‘used’ in a way which amounted to breach of self-confidence. Although she had not promptly returned the resources, she had formerly presented the claimant the permission to see her personal e-mail account and to delete the e-mails relating to the claimant’s private information and facts.

In addition to this, the court held that the facts which was the topic of the claimant’s grievance was completely innocuous and that the claimant had reacted totally disproportionately. The matter should not have been taken to courtroom and the defendant’s undertakings had been adequate.

© RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Take note does not supply a comprehensive or complete assertion of the regulation relating to the problems mentioned nor does it represent legal information. It is supposed only to emphasize normal concerns. Specialist legal guidance should constantly be sought in relation to individual conditions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *