Company protects 'mishandling' of records through court order
Hong Kong's Court of First Instance recently dealt with a case involving an employer seeking an injunction against a former worker to prevent the disclosure of confidential information and documents.
The employer, an insurance company, alleged that the worker had breached their employment contract by sending confidential files to her personal email accounts.
The worker had been employed by the insurance company as an executive assistant from February to August 2023. During this time, she was bound by a written employment contract that included a clause governing the use of information.
This clause prohibited the worker from divulging, disclosing, or communicating any information related to the company's business or its agents or customers, both during and after the termination of her employment.
Following the end of her employment, the worker initiated a claim against the employer before the Labour Tribunal, which she later withdrew in February 2024.
However, the situation escalated when the worker sent two emails to the employer's CEO, copying various other parties, including the Labour Tribunal and the company's HR department.
In these emails, the worker complained about her health and the stress and anxiety she claimed to have experienced during her employment.
She also requested reimbursement from the employer, despite having withdrawn her Labour Tribunal claim.
Attached to these emails were several PDF files containing confidential information, such as meeting minutes and PowerPoint presentations.
Alarmed by the worker's possession and disclosure of these files, the employer authorized a search of the worker's email log.
The search revealed that on several occasions, including her last day of employment, the worker had sent numerous emails from her work account to her personal email accounts.
According to records, these emails contained various confidential documents, such as minutes and PowerPoints of management meetings, board monitoring reports, budget reports, details of auditors and bank accounts, and communications with the Insurance Authority.
The employer's legal team presented these findings to the court, arguing that the disclosure of the confidential information and documents would result in irreparable damage to the company.
They also noted that the worker had not denied possession of the attachments in an email sent to the employer's legal advisers, claiming that she had kept the files for "self-learning and education purposes" and that no leakage of information had occurred.
After considering the evidence and the nature of the confidential information, the court was satisfied that the disclosure of the attachments and the information contained therein was either expressly prohibited by the terms of the worker's employment contract or that they contained trade secrets.
As such, any disclosure by the worker, even after the termination of her employment, was prohibited by implied terms.
The court also noted that given the way in which the worker had been handling the confidential information and documents, there was a risk of further disclosure unless restrained. The worker had not offered any undertaking against further disclosure.
In its decision, the court stated, "Given the nature of the attachments and the information therein, I am satisfied that their disclosure would result in irreparable damage to [the company.]" The court also found that the "balance of convenience is clearly in favour of a grant" of the injunction.
Ultimately, the court granted the employer's application for an injunction, subject to some minor modifications to the wording of the order.
The court noted that the injunction was interlocutory in nature, stating that the worker would be "restrained until the conclusion of the trial hereof or further order."
Regarding costs, the court reserved its decision, noting that there was insufficient information at this stage to determine whether the worker might have voluntarily returned the confidential information and documents with an undertaking against disclosure if asked before the legal action.
The court concluded, "At this stage, my view is that the most appropriate order is to reserve costs, and I so order."
