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
  • 29 October 2026
  • Immigration

UK Immigration shake-up: More flexibility for skilled workers, but at what cost?

The UK Government has outlined further changes to its immigration system, with new measures affecting international graduates, sponsored workers, and businesses employing overseas talent.

art
  • 28 October 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Remote working: 5 key data protection risks for employers

Remote working has become more prominent in modern business. While flexible working arrangements can improve productivity and employee wellbeing, they also create new data protection risks. Regardless of the physical location in which work is done, compliance with UK GDPR does not change.

art
  • 27 October 2026
  • Employment

Fire and Rehire update: Key changes delayed

The Government has published two documents giving key updates to the anticipated changes around ‘fire and rehire’ and restricted contractual variations, coming about as a result of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (“ERA 2025”). We now understand that these changes will now be delayed to March, rather than January 2027.

art
  • 26 October 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholders’ Agreements for Founders and Investors – SHA Series Part 3 of 5

A shareholders’ agreement is arguably one of the most valuable corporate governance agreements (along with articles of association) in any private UK company with more than one shareholder.

art
  • 23 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Section 172 Companies Act 2006: Key lessons from Saxon Woods v Costa

The Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods v Costa UKSC 21 clarifies directors’ duties under Section 172 Companies Act 2006, confirming that good faith requires both honest belief and appropriate conduct.

art
  • 19 October 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks: Are UK businesses becoming immigration enforcement officers?

The UK’s Right to Work regime has undergone a significant expansion, with changes taking effect from 1 October 2026.