0370 270 6000

Are whistleblowers entitled to keep their employer’s confidential documents?

18 February 2022

In Nissan v Passi [2021] EWHC 3642 (Ch) the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.

Nissan pursued an application against its former employee, Mr Passi, for the return of confidential and sensitive documents which Mr Passi had retained following the termination of his employment.  The fact that Mr Passi had retained such documentation came out in the course of disclosure in legal proceedings pursued by Mr Passi in connection with claims of unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment.

In response to the application for the return of documents (and/or the destruction of copies, particularly electronic files), Mr Passi said that he had retained the documents in order to take legal advice and because he was concerned that Nissan would not have otherwise disclosed the documents in the course of the subsequent litigation.

The court granted the injunction and ordered the return/destruction of the documents by Mr Passi.

The reasons for granting the injunction included the court finding that Mr Passi had no right of ownership in the documents (whereas Nissan did) and so had no entitlement to possess them. Mr Passi’s claim for any entitlement to possess the documents did not appear to be assisted by the fact that he had previously told Nissan he had “returned everything he had” when his employment ended which was patently untrue.

The court was further not persuaded by Mr Passi’s argument that he had to retain the documents given his lack of trust in Nissan later disclosing the documents in line with its disclosure obligations in the course of the subsequent litigation. The court was clear in its finding that a party is not permitted to unilaterally determine the extent of another party’s obligations in respect of disclosure to justify retaining documents they have no right to possess.

This judgment confirms previous decisions dealing with similar issues where departing/former employees who later decide to retain documents on the mistaken belief that they are entitled to do so because of their need to rely on the documents in support of their claims. 

Employers will no doubt welcome the confirmation that they can expect courts to uphold their right of ownership in documents, particularly against a former employee seeking to pursue proceedings against them.

Employers may want to review their internal procedures with regard to how confidential and sensitive documentation is identified, stored and handled by employees, particularly when it comes to tracking which employees have access to such documents. Prevention is better than cure when it comes to the handling of confidential documentation but if the worst happens, it will likely assist when taking enforcement action if an employer can identify confidential documentation in order to establish its right of ownership. 

Related opinions

BMA advises consultants not to accept less than the BMA minimum rate card for extra-contractual work

The BMA is advising all NHS / HSCNI consultants to ensure extra-contractual work is paid at the BMA minimum recommended rate and to decline offers of extra-contractual work that doesn't value them appropriately.

View blog

Rising wages ahead

In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.

View blog

World Cup 2022 – how employers can avoid scoring an own goal!

The World Cup kicks off in Qatar on Sunday 20 November 2022, with the final taking place on Sunday 18 December 2022. Undoubtedly, this is a huge sporting event, and many employees will be keen to show their support for their favourite teams. However, due to the time difference, start times for the matches are between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. UK time, which could have an impact on employers if employees who wish to watch the matches are scheduled to work.

View blog

Logistics firm fined for multiple failings leading to asbestos exposure

Logistics company Eddie Stobart has been fined £133,000, after a series of failures which took place whilst excavation work was carried out, exposing its staff to asbestos.

View blog

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up