Pub Employee's Award for Misuse of Private Information Upheld

The High Court has dismissed a pub chain's appeal against an award of damages of £4,500 to a former employee after it gave out her mother's mobile phone number to her violent and abusive ex-partner.

The woman had worked at one of the chain's pubs for about 18 months. She had provided her mother's mobile phone number as an emergency contact number. It was recorded in her personnel file, which was kept in a locked filing cabinet in the manager's office.

On Christmas Day her ex-partner, who was on remand for offences against her including serious violence and harassment by subjecting her to repeated phone calls, got hold of a mobile phone and contacted the pub where she had formerly worked, pretending to be a police officer and claiming that he needed to contact her urgently. The member of staff who took the call consulted a manager, who obtained the mother's number from the personnel file and instructed the staff member to release it to the caller. The ex-partner then contacted the mother while she and her family were out having Christmas lunch, again pretending to be a police officer. After the woman was passed the phone, her ex-partner was abusive and made various threats. He was later sentenced to two and a half years in prison.

The woman sought compensation from the pub chain. The County Court found that the chain was aware that she been in an extremely abusive relationship and had suffered physical assault and harassment as a result. It also knew, or ought reasonably to have known, how important it was that her contact details were kept safe, secure and confidential. The Court upheld her claim on the basis of misuse of private information and breach of confidence. Although the Court did not accept that the chain's actions had caused her injury, it found that they had worsened her existing psychological problems. The chain appealed on a number of grounds.

The High Court rejected the chain's argument that her mother's mobile phone number did not constitute the woman's own information. She had provided it to her employer specifically so that it could be used as a way of contacting her via her mother. It was information in respect of which the chain owed an obligation to her. The Court also rejected the argument that a malicious third party's ability to unlawfully misappropriate information did not amount to a positive act of misuse of private information by the custodian of that information. There had been a positive act of misuse: the disclosure of the information by the staff member, acting on behalf of the employer and on the instruction of the manager. The Court also concluded that the County Court had been right to find in the woman's favour on liability for breach of confidence.