Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
It is not unusual for new technology and its applications to bump awkwardly against existing legal principles. Finding the most appropriate mechanisms for addressing new-fangled mischief sometimes requires lawyers to experiment and innovate. As in any other walk of life this can be spectacularly successful first time and on occasion it may necessitate a more iterative approach.
The rise of electronic communications and social media has presented challenges. Recently there seems to have been a flurry of cases relating to the (mis)appropriation by employees of information which their employers believe 'belongs' to them. In the dark ages this might have entailed photocopying lists of customers or proprietary designs. In the digital age the issue can become a little more blurred.
The law of confidentiality has done a good job over the years addressing most issues in this regard. Contractual provisions are often put in place to complement the common law and there are important practical measures that can be implemented in order to counter abuse - see our note on Confidentiality and employees.
Lawyers have been quick to seize upon the use of other mechanisms to supplement their arsenal in these circumstances. This can be particularly useful in instances where there is some question over whether the information in question meets the classic 'necessary quality of confidence' test in Coco v AN Clark (Engineers)  RPC 41.
In Crowson Fabrics Ltd v Rider  EWHC 2942 (Ch) , British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and others v Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd  EWHC 2642 (Ch) and Executive Grapevine v Wall  EWHC 4152 (Ch) we see the enforcement of database rights used to good effect in countering the misappropriation of information from the workplace. In fact, further avenues were opened up in British Sky Broadcasting as the judge, Sir William Blackburne, commented in para 66 - "Infringement of database right, trade mark infringement and passing off...go hand in hand."
More recently, we have seen an increase in cases involving the exploitation of social media contacts. The position is somewhat complicated by the personal nature of, for example, many LinkedIn accounts. Yet, the law of confidentiality appears well placed to cope with those subtleties. In Hays Specialist Recruitment (Holdings) Ltd v Ions  IRLR 904 we see the court acknowledging that the employer had reasonable grounds for a claim against its former employee and in Whitmar Publications Limited v Gamage and Others  All ER (D) 57 (Jul), the court granted an injunction in relation to the use of LinkedIn contacts by former employees.
However, issues and complexities continue to arise. In these sort of cases, the issue in question is often phrased in terms of who 'owns' the data. As displayed recently in Fairstar Heavy Transport NV v Adkins  All ER (D) 11 (Nov), that is perhaps not the best way to consider the issue at stake. The case concerned the retention by a former employee of his employer's e-mails to him, now contained in a personal e-mail account. There was no claim by the company as to use of confidential information or infringement of any intellectual property right in the e-mails. In the High Court the parties were asked to put forward a specific question on which they wanted the court to rule. In paragraph 11 of this High Court judgment Edwards-Stuart J expressed this as - “Does Fairstar have an enforceable proprietary claim to the content of the emails held by Mr Adkins insofar as they were received or sent by Mr Adkins acting on behalf of Fairstar?”. The judge found that "it is clear that the preponderance of authority points strongly against there being any proprietary right in the content of information, and this must apply to the content of an email, although I would not go so far as to say that this is now settled law".
On appeal, Fairstar Heavy Transport NV v Adkins  All ER (D) 239 (Jul), a different approach was made. The claimant submitted that the relationship between it and its former employee had been one of agency, and a principal was entitled to inspect and copy correspondence held by its agent whether in hard copy or electronically. The court now had no difficulty in finding a right to require production of the emails.
Many lawyers will find this latest Court of Appeal judgment quite satisfying. When faced with a question you find problematic, it's probably because it's the wrong one isn’t it?
0330 161 1234