Proactive Group Holdings Inc & Anor v HJ 2024 Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2821 (KB)
Payone GbmH v Jerry Kofi Logo
26 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 981 (KB)
High Court
A worker took secret company files and used them against his former employer in a tribunal. The court said the files were still secret, even though they were shown at the tribunal, and stopped the worker from sharing them further. The worker had to pay a lot of money because he made the case very difficult and expensive.
Key Facts
- •Payone GmbH (Claimant) sued Jerry Kofi Logo (Defendant) for misappropriation of confidential documents during and after his employment.
- •Mr. Logo, claiming to be a whistleblower, disclosed confidential documents to various regulatory bodies and the press.
- •Payone sought a final injunction to prevent further use of the misappropriated documents, not financial compensation.
- •Mr. Logo's defence rested on the argument that the documents were in the public domain due to their inclusion in Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings.
- •Previous court hearings resulted in the striking out of Mr. Logo's defence and the refusal of his appeals.
Legal Principles
Disclosure or reference in ET proceedings does not automatically negate confidentiality.
Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2013] EWHC 4478 (QB)
Confidentiality may be lost through sufficient publicity or due to the open justice principle, unless countervailing factors exist.
Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2013] EWHC 4478 (QB)
Whether confidentiality is lost is a question of fact and degree.
Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2013] EWHC 4478 (QB); SL Claimants v Tesco Plc [2019] EWHC 3315 (Ch)
ETs have the power to make orders restricting open justice to protect confidential information.
Frewer v Google UK Limited [2022] EAT 34
An employee who misappropriates confidential information may be held to a higher standard than a member of the public.
Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood [2005] 1 WLR 567
Outcomes
Final injunction granted in favour of Payone.
The court found that the confidential information had not entered the public domain and that Mr. Logo's actions were unlawful. The court balanced Mr. Logo's free speech rights against Payone's legitimate interests in protecting its confidentiality and property.
Costs awarded to Payone on an indemnity basis.
Mr. Logo's conduct was deemed vexatious and abusive, prolonging the litigation unnecessarily.
Mr. Logo ordered to make an interim payment of £100,000 on account of costs.
This was deemed a reasonable amount given the likely final costs.
Mr. Logo's application to set aside previous orders dismissed and certified as without merit.
The applications were considered to be without merit and an attempt to circumvent previous court decisions.
Similar Cases
Morgan Fire Protection Limited v Robert Peter Mogford & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1192 (KB)
City Site Solutions Limited v Liam Baker & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2064 (KB)
Michael Clifford v Millicom Services UK Limited & Ors.
[2023] EWCA Civ 50
Stonegate Farmers Limited & Ors v Michael Richard John Kent & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3051 (Ch)