In Aviva Insurance policies Ltd v David Oliver [2019] EWHC 2824 (Comm), Aviva Coverage Ltd (“Aviva”) introduced a assert versus David Oliver (the “Defendant”) centered on the Defendant’s misuse of Aviva’s confidential policyholder data. Aviva’s declare involved: (i) breach of self-assurance (ii) inducing a breach of agreement and (iii) unlawful means conspiracy.

Aviva employed Kirstie Carruthers (the “Personnel”) who was liable for collating details of Aviva’s policyholders. The Worker offered this confidential information and facts (e.g. policyholder’s name, plan range, car registration range) to the Defendant, who proceeded to provide that data to third occasion statements administration entities.

Judge Eyre QC, sitting in the Business Courtroom (QBD), discovered in favour of Aviva on all three triggers of motion and awarded it the sum of £108,651.59 in respect of the charge of Aviva’s investigation and remediation steps.

Judge Eyre QC affirmed the determination in Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] 7 WLUK 2 which mentioned there were being 3 key aspects needed to set up a breach of self confidence: specifically that (i) the data has “the needed top quality of self esteem about it” (ii) the facts is imparted in conditions importing an obligation of confidence and (iii) there is unauthorised use of that details to the detriment of the celebration communicating it. The Defendant acknowledged that the details was private and it was found that the Defendant also experienced expertise that he was acquiring the information improperly from the Employee. As these, the Defendant was matter to an obligation of assurance to Aviva and his subsequent sale of that information was an unauthorised breach of that obligation.

Choose Eyre QC observed that an inducement to a breach of agreement could be dedicated by a person who only agreed to pay back for content that was offered in breach of a agreement, even if the give originated from the particular person matter to the agreement. It was located that the Defendant realized that the confidential details for which he was paying the Worker was received unlawfully from Aviva, and that this sale was in breach of her employment agreement.

It was also held by Judge Eyre QC that the elements of unlawful indicates conspiracy involved: (i) mixed action (ii) illegal usually means as aspect of that action and (iii) that an intention to injure the sufferer want not be the predominant purpose of that action (for each Kuwait Oil Tanker Co SAK v Al Bader (No.3) [2000] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 271). Judge Eyre QC identified that the Defendant realized the Employee was delivering him with private info that she wrongly received from Aviva. The commercial deal between the Defendant and the Staff was discovered to total to a combined action employing illegal indicates and it was also held that the intent was to injure Aviva.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here