This case concerned an urgent application for an injunction to restrain an ex-employee from disclosing information obtained from and relating to his employment. The information was highly confidential in nature and was protected by express duties of confidence as outlined in his contract of employment.

Facts

The defendant, a former director in the multi-national law firm Linklaters LLP, was dismissed with six months' notice with an ex gratia payment. Clause 10 of his contract of employment included an express obligation of confidentiality. Prior to leaving he warned that he intended to "share his impressions of the current culture at Linklaters" with particular reference to what he called "the ongoing struggle Linklaters has with women in the workplace," referring to three specific examples on which he intended to give interviews.

The claimants' application was for an injunction to restrain the disclosure of information relating to the identities of the complainants and staff members.

The Law

Whenever a person threatens or intends to publish information, the Convention right to freedom of expression must be considered by the Court. An injunction which restrains publication is an interference with that right, which can only be justified if it pursues one of the legitimate aims identified in Article 10(2) of the Convention, and is necessary to and proportionate for the pursuit of such aim/s.

The method by which the Court should strike the balance between competing considerations in this field is discussed in ABC v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2329.

Decision

The Court held there was clear evidence of a threat or intention to give interviews for publication about matters that came to the attention of the defendant in the course of his employment. These matters related to present or former employees or partners of Linklaters, and the information referred to was of an inherently sensitive and confidential nature.

The Court therefore granted the order sought by the claimants.

The claimants accepted, in general terms, that there was a legitimate public interest in the due performance by large firms, such as Linklaters, of their social and moral duties towards their staff. But the Court stressed the existence of such an interest cannot justify indiscriminate disclosure of otherwise sensitive confidential information which others have a legitimate interest in keeping confidential.

A general desire to talk publicly about the "culture" of a large firm is not enough to justify the disclosure of such details. There may be cases in which the details of individual acts of alleged or establish misconduct, combined with one another, create a compelling picture of persistent or habitual wrongdoing, serious enough to satisfy the requisite tests but this was not apparent here.

The rights of the third parties involved, and in particular those of the individual complainants, bolstered the case in favour of granting an injunction.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/177.html