Hamza Ijaz v Ghafoor Manan
[2023] EWHC 2574 (KB)
Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Marian Okunola (Trial)
25 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2718 (KB)
High Court
A former employee was fired and then sent tons of angry emails and social media posts to her former bosses and colleagues, using secret company information. The court said she was wrong, made her stop, and made her pay a lot of money to her former company and colleagues.
Key Facts
- •Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd and others (Claimants) sued Marian Okunola (Defendant) for breach of confidence, breach of contract, and harassment.
- •The Defendant, a former employee, allegedly misused confidential information and harassed Claimants after dismissal.
- •Defendant denied all claims and made several unsuccessful applications to strike out the claims or for summary judgment.
- •The case involved extensive evidence, including witness testimonies and numerous emails and social media posts.
- •A pre-action injunction was previously granted and breached leading to contempt of court findings against the Defendant.
Legal Principles
CPR 3.4(2): Strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds or is an abuse of process.
CPR 3.4(2)
CPR 24.3: Summary judgment if a party has no real prospect of succeeding.
CPR 24.3
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd principles for summary judgment.
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Breach of confidence requires information with the necessary quality of confidence and imparted in circumstances importing a duty of confidence.
Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415
Protection from Harassment Act 1997: Defines harassment and the 'course of conduct' requirement.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust: Harassment must cross the line from unattractive conduct to oppressive and unacceptable conduct.
Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224
Issue estoppel: Prevents re-litigation of issues already decided in previous proceedings.
Green v Hampshire County Council [1979] ICR 861; Watt v Ahsan [2008] 1 AC 696
Ratification of ostensible authority: An employer's acceptance of a contract signed by someone without formal authority makes the contract valid.
Not explicitly cited, but implied in section 78
Civil Evidence Act 1995, section 4: Guidance on assessing the weight of hearsay evidence.
Civil Evidence Act 1995, section 4
Outcomes
Defendant's application to strike out/summary judgment dismissed.
The application was flawed, the claims disclosed reasonable grounds, and determining it would have involved a 'mini-trial'.
Claimants' application to rely on Vernon 1 granted; significant weight attached.
Statement admissible as hearsay, and circumstances suggest reliability.
First and Second Claimants' claims for breach of contract and breach of confidence succeed.
Defendant breached express and implied confidentiality obligations in her contract; misused confidential information.
Third and Fourth Claimants' claims for harassment succeed.
Defendant's conduct constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment; did not meet the threshold for the statutory defence.
Final injunctions granted against the Defendant to prevent further misuse of confidential information and harassment.
Prevent further breaches, given the likely significant losses and Defendant's impecuniosity.
Damages awarded to Claimants for breach of contract, breach of confidence, and harassment.
Reflect losses suffered; assessed based on comparable cases and evidence of impact.
Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) granted against the Defendant for 3 years.
Defendant persistently issued claims/applications without merit; high risk of further abuse of process.
Defendant ordered to pay Claimants' costs on an indemnity basis.
Defendant's conduct was extraordinary, showed disregard for court authority, and involved malicious actions.
Defendant ordered to pay £288,344.50 on account of costs.
Reasonable sum considering likely total costs and indemnity basis assessment.