JPP Law Blog
Company stops ‘loose cannon’ revealing information about clients
A company has prevented an aggrieved employee described as a 'loose cannon' from revealing confidential information about some of its clients, including a foreign government and a royal family.
The High Court heard that the company provided operational and logistical support to members of the Dubai government and its royal family when they were in the UK.
This gave some employees access to clients' confidential information, so they had to sign an employment contract that prohibited them from disclosing any of that information, even after they had stopped working for the company.
One employee got involved in a dispute that led to him being dismissed. He was aggrieved and believed that he had been treated unfairly. He sent a message to the company's managing director threatening to disclose confidential information about company clients.
He said he would use the internet to publish photographs and recordings he had taken and said that he knew he would be breaching his contract, but he did not care.
The company sought an injunction to prevent him making any disclosures. The employee told the court that he had made the threat to encourage a settlement, that he did not possess any recordings or photographs and had no real intention to publish confidential information.
He said he had been angry and that he was concerned that if an injunction was granted he could be held responsible for other aggrieved employees anonymously disclosing confidential information on the internet.
The court ruled against him and granted the injunction. It held that there was a real risk that he would disclose the information if not restrained. He was a loose cannon, and while he might say that he had no intention to disclose, he was impulsive and angry, and the risk existed.
For further advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or for employment law advice more generally, please contact JPP Law on 020 3468 3064 or email info@jpplaw.co.uk
JPP Law Blog

- Case Studies and Reviews (9)
- Commercial Law (108)
- Dispute Resolution (27)
- Employment Law (119)
- Intellectual Property (3)
- Start-ups (25)
- Videos (8)
- 2022 May (1)
- 2022 April (3)
- 2022 March (2)
- 2022 February (2)
- 2022 January (2)
- 2021 December (1)
- 2021 November (1)
- 2021 October (1)
- 2021 September (1)
- 2021 August (1)
- 2021 July (1)
- 2021 May (1)
- 2021 April (1)
- 2021 March (1)
- 2021 February (1)
- 2021 January (1)
- 2020 December (1)
- 2020 November (2)
- 2020 October (2)
- 2020 September (2)
- 2020 August (1)
- 2020 July (3)
- 2020 June (1)
- 2020 May (3)
- 2020 April (1)
- 2020 March (2)
- 2020 February (2)
- 2020 January (2)
- 2019 December (2)
- 2019 October (1)
- 2019 September (5)
- 2019 July (3)
- 2019 June (2)
- 2019 May (2)
- 2019 April (3)
- 2019 March (2)
- 2019 February (2)
- 2019 January (2)
- 2018 December (2)
- 2018 October (4)
- 2018 September (12)
- 2018 February (6)
- 2018 January (7)
- 2017 December (2)
- 2018 July (14)
- 2018 June (2)
- 2018 May (13)
- 2018 April (8)
- 2018 March (11)
- 2017 November (6)
- 2017 October (12)
- 2017 September (14)
- 2017 July (7)
- 2017 June (10)
- 2017 May (6)
- 2017 April (4)
- 2017 March (11)
- 2017 February (6)
- 2017 January (1)
- 2016 December (2)
- 2016 September (4)
- 2016 July (1)