Trailfinders Ltd v Travel Counsellors Ltd & Ors
Decision date: 12 March 2020
Neutral citation: [2020] EWHC 591 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Trailfinders sued two former sales consultants, Mr La Gette and Mr Bishop, and Travel Counsellors Ltd (TCL) alleging misappropriation and use of confidential client information. The court found the client data was confidential (class 2), that both former consultants breached implied contractual and equitable duties by copying/using that information after leaving, and that TCL breached an equitable duty of confidence by receiving and using confidential contact lists it knew or ought to have known were Trailfinders' data. Claims that franchisees were TCL employees or agents were not established.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Customer/client lists and similar data stored on employer systems can constitute confidential information protected both by an implied contractual duty and by equity where the employer has taken steps to keep the information secret (class 2). Copying or compiling such information during employment for the purpose of post‑employment use, or accessing and using it after leaving without client permission, breaches the implied term and equitable duty of confidence. A recipient who receives and uses such contact information and knows or ought reasonably to have known of its confidential origin can incur and breach an equitable obligation of confidence.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observes that Directive 2016/943 (as implemented) does not change substantive English law on confidential information but may illuminate principles. It also comments on the continued relevance of the class 2/class 3 distinction and procedural expectations in IPEC that parties should put issues into pleadings by the CMC and avoid surprising opponents with late evidence.