Page 29 - BOSS Today Issue 19

THE COST OF

IMMORALITY

IN BUSINESS

magine that you have just pricing data to approach two he had not been aware of the
taken on a new employee of their clients and offer them a exact nature of Mr Keyvanfar’s
Ifrom your main competitor. better deal. obligations to Pintorex. The
Shortly after they commence The key question put before Court could not be satisfied
their employment at your firm the Patents County Court was that he had turned a blind eye
they come into your office, whether Parax was vicariously to his employee’s wrongdoing,
quietly close the door behind liable for their new employee’s nor was there any evidence of a
them and present you with actions. It was. The Court found wider conspiracy within Parax to
the Sage database of your that Parax had been established misuse the ill-gotten data.
competitor. What do you do? as a vehicle for Mr Keyvanfar to This case provides a stark
In the recent case of Pintorex provide his services and that he example of the dangers of
Limited v Keyvanfar a similar had been authorised by Parax to giving into the temptation of
moral conundrum, although act on their behalf before he had taking and using stolen data
one of a more pre-meditated left Pintorex, therefore effectively from a competitor and also
nature, was considered. The acting as an agent. demonstrates that getting
relevant defendants were Mr On the evidence, it could not away with it may not be as
Keyvanfar (the new employee), be said that Mr Keyvanfar was straightforward as first thought.
his employer Parax Office Limited acting ‘on a frolic of his own’ Had there been evidence to
and finally Parax’s sole director. when he was soliciting business confirm his complicity, the Parax
Pintorex brought claims from Pintorex’s clients. Parax director would have found
against these defendants were therefore held liable for himself jointly liable along with
alleging that Mr Keyvanfar had his breaches of confidence, his company and new employee.
on his departure taken a copy including those pre-dating his The moral of this cautionary
of their accounting database, employment with the company, tale can be summed up quite
which contained full details of on the basis that they had simply by saying that the net cost
the business they had conducted sufficient knowledge of what was of obtaining an unfair advantage
over previous years. Pintorex going on to be held jointly liable. in such circumstances is likely
alleged that Mr Keyvanfar had It is important to note that to far outweigh the prospective
also contacted their customers not every act of an agent will benefit.
while still employed by the give rise to vicarious liability
company, with a view to taking on the part of their employer. n FOR FURTHER
their business with him when The third defendant, the sole INFORMATION CONTACT
he changed sides. Once he had director or Parax was not found THE BOSS HR TEAM ON
left, Mr Keyvanfar used Pintorex’s liable. On the evidence available, 0845 450 1565

October 2013 | BOSS TODAY 29

p28-p29 DTB HR.indd 3 02/10/2013 14:20