作者
Shireen Shaikh

Shireen Shaikh

高级专业支持律师

Read More
kathryn clapp

Kathryn Clapp

高级专业支持律师

Read More
作者
Shireen Shaikh

Shireen Shaikh

高级专业支持律师

Read More
kathryn clapp

Kathryn Clapp

高级专业支持律师

Read More

2020年6月17日

Law at Work - June 2020 – 3 / 5 观点

Not always a remedy where confidentiality clause breached

Duchy Farm Kennels v Steels [2020] EWHC 1208 (QB)

Why care

It has become standard practice for employers to include a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement, obliging the employee to keep the fact and contents of a settlement agreement confidential. It makes commercial sense for employers not to want the fact or terms of any severance deals to become common knowledge lest others in the workplace see them as a soft touch or else try to jump on a 'gravy train'. If the employee breaches confidentiality, the agreement sometimes specifies that the employer will be entitled to withhold some or all of the payment. But will the employer always have a remedy if it seeks to rely on such a clause? It would appear not from the High Court case reported below; a lot will depend on the drafting and the particular context.

The case

Mr Steels waived his claims against Duchy Farms Kennels through Acas using a COT3. It contained a confidentiality clause, requiring Mr Steels to keep the fact and terms of the agreement strictly confidential. When Mr Steels disclosed the settlement to another employee, Duchy Farms withheld the final instalments of the payment and sought a declaration that the final sums were not recoverable due to the employee's breach. The court held that Duchy Farms was not entitled to withhold the final instalments. On the facts, and having regard to the drafting of the agreement, confidentiality was not a condition of the agreement, it did not go the heart of it. While the court accepted, in principle, that an employee breaching confidentiality could be liable in damages where the disclosure generated 'copy-cat unmeritorious claims', this was not the case here. Neither had the employer been able to show anything 'special' about the case which demonstrated that confidentiality was of paramount importance.

What to take away

If protecting confidentiality is crucial to the employer, it should make this clear by framing the term as a condition of the agreement. It should also set out the consequences of breach (usually withholding part of the settlement monies). Ideally, it should also be able to pinpoint a specific consideration, beyond not generally wanting its approach to settlement being known, which makes confidentiality paramount. In some cases, where there is scope for significant reputational damage, or else if the parties are well-known, it will be obvious that there are 'special circumstances'. However, in the majority of cases the employer will generally just want to keep its severance deals private and should be aware that it may not always have an effective remedy in such cases where it includes a generic clause.

本系列内容

就业、养老金和流动性

Pensions – always on the agenda

QUICK READ

作者 作者

就业、养老金和流动性

TUPE: beneficial changes to contract void

QUICK READ

作者 Shireen Shaikh, Kathryn Clapp

就业、养老金和流动性

Law at Work: Hot topics - June 2020

QUICK READ

作者 Shireen Shaikh, Kathryn Clapp

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

people walking
就业、养老金和流动性

Wake-up call to 'middleman' businesses introducing individuals to end-users

2020年10月19日

作者 Shireen Shaikh

点击此处了解更多
people walking
就业、养老金和流动性

New Government Job Support Scheme

2020年9月24日
QUICK READ

作者 Paul Callaghan 以及 Shireen Shaikh

点击此处了解更多
waiting room
就业、养老金和流动性

No requirement for employer to re-engage employee following unfair dismissal where lack of trust and confidence in employee's capability

Kelly v PGA European Tour

2020年9月16日
QUICK READ

作者 Kathryn Clapp

点击此处了解更多