Sign Up for our Free Newsletter
menu
Solicitors Journal Homepage
  • Home
  • News
  • Digital Edition
  • Practice Notes
    • Area of Law
      • Agricultural
      • ADR & Mediation
      • Asylum & Immigration
      • Aviation
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Charities
      • Children
      • Clinical negligence
      • Commercial
      • Competition
      • Construction
      • Conveyancing
      • Costs
      • Crime
      • Data Protection
      • Discrimination
      • Education
      • Employment
      • Energy
      • EU
      • Expert witness
      • Family
      • Financial services & Tax
      • Health & Safety
      • Human rights
      • Inquest
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual property
      • Legal Aid
      • Litigation
      • Maritime
      • Media
      • Mergers & Acquisition
      • Pensions
      • Personal injury
      • Police & Prisons
      • Private client
      • Procedures
      • Professional negligence
      • Property
      • Public Law
      • Regulation
      • Residential
      • Road traffic
      • Vulnerable Clients
    • Management
      • Business Development and Marketing
      • Career development
      • Covid-19
      • Education & Training
      • Equality & diversity
      • Ethics and Compliance
      • Finance
      • Human Resources
      • Knowledge management
      • Leadership
      • Legal services
      • Marketing
      • Pro bono
      • Professional indemnity
      • Regulators
      • Risk & Compliance
      • Technical legal practice
      • Technology
      • Wellbeing
  • Opinion
  • Business
  • International
  • Interview
  • Features
  • More
    • Archive
    • About
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletter
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
    • Media Pack
    • Site Map
  • Contact Us
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Follow us:
    Twitter
    LinkedIn
© 2023 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Toni Lorenzo

Toni Lorenzo

PartnerLewis Silkin
Quotation Marks

…employers should ensure they have in place well-drafted express confidentiality provisions that clearly set out employees’ obligations, both during and after employment.

Stealing a march: delivery-up of employer's confidential information

Thu Mar 31 2022Opinion
Stealing a march: delivery-up of employer's confidential information

Toni Lorenzo and Alistair Hayes comment on the High Court’s decision in Nissan Motor (GB) Ltd & Anor v Passi [2021] EWHC 3642 (Ch).

Background

Ravinder Passi was previously employed as Nissan’s Global General Counsel based in Japan. His employment was terminated in November 2020. Mr Passi brought two Employment Tribunal claims, including allegations of whistleblowing, detriment and victimisation (one during – and one following the end of – his employment). On providing his disclosure in connection with these claims, Nissan realised Mr Passi had removed and retained hundreds of highly confidential and privileged documents.

Nissan successfully applied to the High Court for interim injunctions compelling Mr Passi to deliver up and destroy these documents – and to provide a witness statement detailing what use he had made of the information they contained.

Key questions for the High Court

At the application hearing in December 2021, the key areas of disagreement between the parties were whether (in accordance with the American Cyanamid principles) there was (1) a “serious issue to be tried” and (2) whether it was appropriate, in light of the “balance of convenience” principle, to order Mr Passi to delete documents that he had already disclosed in the Employment Tribunal proceedings.

Serious issue to be tried

Mr Passi’s counsel argued that sharing confidential information with his solicitor for the purposes of taking legal advice was a lawful use of that information. Individuals benefit from an important right to confidentially seek informed legal advice. The High Court did not accept this argument. His Honour Judge Keyser QC could not see “any seriously arguable case that… [Mr Passi] could have grounds for defeating a proprietary, contractual and/or equitable claim for the delivery up of the documents.” HHJ Keyser QC appeared most convinced by the express obligations to return Nissan’s property contained in Mr Passi’s contract of employment, the fact he had sought to mislead Nissan in relation to the extent of his compliance with these obligations – and the fact that Mr Passi had passed at least some of the retained information to a journalist (the latter point served to undermine Mr Passi’s argument that the documents had been removed purely for the purpose of taking legal advice).

Balance of convenience

HHJ Keyser QC was clear in his rejection of Mr Passi’s argument that requiring him to deliver up and delete the documents already included in his Employment Tribunal disclosure list would represent an interference with the processes of the Employment Tribunal. The judge commented that “it is not for a party that gains access to another party’s documents to decide unilaterally on the appropriate scope of the disclosure of the other party’s documents”. If following the delivery up, Mr Passi disagreed with the scope of Nissan’s disclosure, then he could make an application for specific disclosure in the usual way. Mr Passi was not entitled to “pre-empt the decision that… properly lies with the claimants and their solicitors.”

As to the “balance of convenience”, the judge relied on the strength of Nissan’s case, Mr Passi’s surreptitious retention of documents and the fact that Mr Passi had admittedly imparted information to at least one journalist, to conclude that the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting an injunction to remove documents from the possession of Mr Passi.

Practical observations

Employers should take steps to protect their confidential information well before litigation is contemplated. Most importantly, employers should ensure they have in place well-drafted express confidentiality provisions that clearly set out employees’ obligations, both during and after employment. These should include:

  • Clear definitions of what is considered to amount to 'confidential information' – and which have been tailored to their business and the employee in question;
  • A requirement to return and permanently delete company property (in all its forms) on termination of employment.

In addition, employers should be proactive in reminding employees of this obligation, in writing, on termination of their employment – and, ideally, ensuring they receive confirmation from the employee that the obligation has been complied with.

Having taken the above steps, an employer will find themselves in a far stronger position if they need to threaten legal action to prevent misuse of confidential information by new employers or other third parties.

Toni Lorenzo is a partner and Alistair Hayes is an associate, both with Lewis Silkin: lewissilkin.com

Tags:EmploymentData ProtectionHuman ResourcesEthics and ComplianceRisk & ComplianceProfessional indemnity
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisement
Latest News

Legal job numbers increase but applications decline

Fri Sep 29 2023

BARBRI candidates outperform SRA average by 13%

Fri Sep 29 2023

Justice delayed as thousands of cases wait more than two years to be heard

Thu Sep 28 2023

Solicitors warned over immigration services

Thu Sep 28 2023

New report highlights the transformative effects of domestic abuse training on family lawyers

Wed Sep 27 2023

Asylum seekers stranded on Diego Garcia win challenge against return to Sri Lanka

Wed Sep 27 2023

UN and coalition of NGOs write to Unilever to voice deep concern regarding victims of violence at Unilever tea plantation

Tue Sep 26 2023

Live Facial Recognition: How to Stay Within the Law

Tue Sep 26 2023

Ethics Institute launches taskforce to examine legal services to oligarchs and kleptocrats

Mon Sep 25 2023
FeaturedThe Law Society intervention ensures liberal approach to dealing with concurrent problems on legal aid
The Law Society intervention ensures liberal approach to dealing with concurrent problems on legal aid
NewsFri Sep 29 2023
The Law Society intervention ensures liberal approach to dealing with concurrent problems on legal aid
The High Court has today (29 September) handed down its judgment in R v Lawstop*, a judicial review case where the Law Society intervened.
Jeanne Kelly elected President of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce
Jeanne Kelly elected President of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce
NewsFri Sep 29 2023
Jeanne Kelly elected President of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce
Jeanne Kelly, one of the founding partners of Browne Jacobson’s Dublin offering was yesterday (Tuesday 26 September) announced as the new elected President of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce (BICC).
Families continue to be victims of a broken justice system
Families continue to be victims of a broken justice system
NewsFri Sep 29 2023
Families continue to be victims of a broken justice system
The continued delays in the family courts mean families are the victims of a broken justice system, the Law Society of England and Wales warned today (29 September).
Call for compensation scheme extension to help more abuse survivors
Call for compensation scheme extension to help more abuse survivors
NewsFri Sep 29 2023
Call for compensation scheme extension to help more abuse survivors
APIL is calling for victims of child sex crimes, such as online grooming and online child sexual abuse, to be eligible for damages from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS).
SJ Interview: Hannah Ambrose
SJ Interview: Hannah Ambrose
SJ InterviewMon Sep 25 2023
SJ Interview: Hannah Ambrose
Hannah Ambrose is an international arbitration partner at Herbert Smith Freehills. She talks to Solicitors Journal about her practice and the Law Commission's recent proposals to update the Arbitration Act 1996.
Whose human rights are more important, yours or mine?
Whose human rights are more important, yours or mine?
ForewordFri Sep 08 2023
Whose human rights are more important, yours or mine?

Under the law, should your right to express your opinion – be it on politics, the environment, abortion, or anything else – trump my right to go about my business unhindered, whether or not I happen to agree with your opinion?