The Court Of Public Opinion

The defendant resigned and found employment with one of the claimants competitors. Shortly after her resignation, the claimant discovered that the defendant had sent three e-mails to her personal e-mail account prior to leaving the company. The e-mails concerned:

* Presentations she had made to the claimants customers;

* Feedback which customers had given in relation to the claimants services; and

* Prices of the claimants products.

The claimant was of the opinion that the information contained in the e-mails was confidential and therefore violated the terms of the defendants contract of employment. The claimant confronted the defendant with its discovery.

The defendant said that she had sent the e-mails to her personal e-mail account in error, and offered to let the claimant view her personal e-mail account to show that she had not breached the terms of her contract. The claimant tried to persuade the defendant to stay in its employment, but was unsuccessful.

The claimant then instructed its solicitors to write to the defendant alleging that the defendant had breached the terms of her employment which amounted to breach of confidence. The claimant also requested the return of all its materials which were in the defendants possession. The defendant replied to the letter stating that the e-mails were not sent to anyone else, and that once the error had been discovered, she had not even opened them.

The claimant did not respond to her letter. They instead issued proceedings against her and applied for an interim injunction. They alleged that the sending of the e-mails to her personal account amounted to her using confidential information in contravention to her contractual obligations. They also alleged that by her failing to immediately return their materials, she had further breached the terms of her contract.

The claim was dismissed. The court held the where the e-mails had remained unopened the confidential information had not been used in a way which amounted to breach of confidence. Although she had not immediately returned the materials, she had previously offered the claimant the permission to view her personal e-mail account and to delete the e-mails relating to the claimants confidential information.

In addition to this, the court held that the information which was the subject of the claimants complaint was utterly innocuous and that the claimant had reacted totally disproportionately. The matter should not have been taken to court and the defendants undertakings had been adequate.

RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

More articles at article database

In the recent case of Draper v Mears Ltd [2006 the issue of whether the employer had followed the Employment Acts correctly in dismissing an employee was brought to light. The employee was employed as a plumber and was given use of a company van. The employer had a sensible rule that any company vehicle should not be operated after the consumption of alcohol. The employer operated a zero-tolerance policy in this respect, of which the employee was fully aware.

After work on one occasion, the employee parked the van near to a public house, which happened to be close to his work premises. He went to meet a colleague who had invited him out for a drink. Two of the employers managers happened to go to the same public house and discovered the employee sitting in the passenger seat of another company vehicle, with his colleague in the drivers seat.

One of the managers was of the opinion that the employee was a little drunk and challenged his proposed use for personal reasons of the colleagues company vehicle. The employee was sent a letter dated 29th October 2004 informing him he was required to attend a disciplinary hearing. The issues to be considered being cited as:

‘Using a vehicle for social purposes. Conduct which fails to reasonably ensure health and safety of oneself and others. Insubordination. A breach of the company vehicle regulations and procedures’

The employee was dismissed after the disciplinary hearing. The primary reason for his dismissal, which was set out in writing the next day, was that he was intending to drive his company vehicle after the consumption of alcohol. The employee claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and brought a claim before the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim and the employee appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

The issue arose as to whether the Employment Tribunal had erred in law in deciding whether the employer had complied with the standard dismissal and disciplinary procedures as outlined in the Employment Acts. The appeal was dismissed for the following reasons:

* Firstly, the employer had to set out why he was thinking of dismissing the employee and provide the employee with an invitation to discuss the matters at hand.

* Secondly, the tribunal were entitled to find that the statutory procedures had been complied with. The letter of 29th October had successfully outlined the general nature of the alleged misconduct.

RT COOPERS, 2006. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.

More articles at articles database