Ions worked for Hays Specialist Recruitment for six and a half
years before leaving to run his own agency, Exclusive Human
Resources, which he set up almost three weeks before resigning.
Hays alleges that while still an employee, Ions copied and
retained confidential information about clients and contacts of
Hays. The firm says that Ions used that information for his own
venture and that he breached his contract of employment. Hays went
to the High Court in London to seek pre-action disclosure from Ions
and his firm, i.e. an order to disclose information that Hays could
use as the basis of a subsequent lawsuit.
Hays examined Ions' email account after his departure and found
evidence that Ions had invited at least two Hays clients to join
his network at LinkedIn, a social networking site that focuses on
professional relationships. It suspects him of inviting many
more.
Ions told the court that he had been a member of LinkedIn for
over a year, with the encouragement of Hays. LinkedIn is widely
used by recruitment firms and Ions said that others in Hays were
also members.
In a letter to Hays' solicitors, Ions offered to delete "the
entirety of the Hays linked contacts" from his LinkedIn network
though he did not say how many there were. Hays demanded full
details and warned him to preserve this evidence. Ions then said he
had arranged for the whole of his old LinkedIn network to be
deleted. He said he had no other copy of the list and could not
recreate it. The US operator of LinkedIn agreed to preserve the
data pending the outcome of the case.
Ions argued that all the information was put on the site during
the course of his employment. Mr Justice David Richards wrote, "His
case, denied by Hays, is that it was done with Hays' consent and
that once uploaded and once the invitation to join his network is
accepted, the information ceased to be confidential because it was
accessible to a wider audience through his network."
His lawyer said it was not Ions' action in uploading email
addresses to LinkedIn, but the invitees' acceptance to become
connections which resulted in the information which resulted in the
information becoming available on his network and it is not then
confidential but publicly available, at least to his other
connection.
"In my view, this breaks down at the first stage," wrote Justice
Richards, dismissing that argument. "If the information was
confidential, it was Mr Ions' action in uploading the email
addresses which involved a transfer of information to a site where
at least the details of those addresses who accepted his invitation
would be accessible by him after his employment had ceased."
"The evidence suggests that he may have done so, not for the
benefit of Hays but for the benefit of his post-termination
business," he wrote. "If so, even if confidentiality in the
information was thereafter lost, Hays may well have a claim against
Mr Ions."
Later in the judgment, Justice Richards observed of the email
addresses, "Even if he uploaded them with authority, it is
difficult to imagine that the authority was not limited to using
them in the performance of his duties as an employee of Hays."
Ions was ordered to disclose his LinkedIn business contacts
requested by Hays and all emails sent to or received by his
LinkedIn account from Hays' computer network. Ions was also ordered
to disclose all documents, including invoices and emails,
evidencing his use of the LinkedIn contacts and any business
obtained from them. Ions was told to ask LinkedIn for the
documents.
Hays' additional request for a copy of Ions' entire database of
clients was rejected as being "simply a fishing expedition" and
"plainly too wide."
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
