Search

How can we help?

Icon

Ex-employee ordered to delete confidential information stored on personal devices

In an age where employees are easily able to copy, store and upload confidential information, employers are having to become increasingly vigilant to prevent such information ending up in the wrong hands.  This was an issue for the claimants in Arthur J Gallagher Services (UK) Limited and others v Skriptchenko and others. The Claimants were a group of companies providing insurance brokerage services.  Upon leaving one of these companies, Mr Skriptchenko took the Claimants’ client list with him and used it to approach over 300 of the Claimants’ clients after joining a competitor firm.

The Claimants successfully applied for an order to inspect electronic devices and computers belonging to Mr Skriptchenko and his new employer. The Claimants were also granted an order that if any confidential  information relating to the Claimants was found, it was to be destroyed. In the absence of any previous authority on the destruction of confidential material, the High Court provided a detailed explanation as to why an order for destruction was appropriate in this case. The Court was particularly influenced by the “high degree of subterfuge” in this case and the fact that Mr Skriptchenko and his new employer knowingly breached confidentiality. The Court agreed with the Claimants that Mr Skriptchenko and his employer could not be trusted to delete any confidential information themselves and so a third party was appointed to inspect and destruct the material.

In an age where employees are easily able to copy, store and upload confidential information, employers are having to become increasingly vigilant to prevent such information ending up in the wrong hands.

Although a small victory for employers, Mr Skriptchenko and his employer admitted that they had breached the Claimants’ confidentiality which played a key part in the Court’s willingness to grant an injunction. Employers who suspect but have little evidence to show that an ex-employee has taken confidential information are likely to face greater difficulties. To guard against this risk, employment contracts should clearly set out the employee’s obligations on termination  which employers may want to mirror in a Bring Your Own Device to Work policy.

Employmentbuddy.com 

Disclaimer

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 15 October 2026

Clarkslegal celebrates continued success in Chambers and Partners UK 2027

Clarkslegal is delighted to announce that we have once again been recognised by Chambers and Partners UK 2027, celebrating continued success across the firm and a number of enhanced individual rankings.

Pub
  • 15 October 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Data breaches and ICO investigations: Responding with confidence

In this podcast Harry Berryman and Zahra Navarro discuss recent ICO enforcement action, common causes of data breaches, and the practical steps organisations should take to respond effectively when incidents occur.

art
  • 14 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

London Court of International Arbitration v International Chamber of Commerce: Key differences

Compare LCIA and ICC arbitration rules, costs, confidentiality provisions and expedited procedures. Learn the key differences between these leading international arbitration institutions and how to choose the right option for your commercial dispute.

art
  • 09 October 2026
  • Employment

Neurodiversity, probation and unfair dismissal: What employers need to know

The next few years are introducing landmark changes to employment law in the UK, under the Employment Rights Act 2025. Part of these changes include the amendments to rights to unfair dismissal, reducing the qualifying period for this right to six months.

art
  • 08 October 2026
  • Commercial Real Estate

Packing up rate mitigation – The end of ‘box shifting’?

What is box shifting and how does it affect property owners and tenants? We examine the Court of Appeal’s decision in City of London v 48th Street Holdings and its implications for intermittent occupation, business rates and lease arrangements.

art
  • 30 September 2026

Clarkslegal celebrates strong results in the Legal 500 UK 2027

Clarkslegal would like to thank its clients for the outstanding feedback that contributed to the firm’s recognition in the Legal 500 UK Solicitors 2027 Guide. We are proud to be recognised across five key practice areas: Litigation, Property, Corporate & Commercial, Employment, and Immigration.