Saturday Dec 28, 2024
Saturday Dec 28, 2024
Monday, 9 October 2017 00:47 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
In a landmark ruling delivered by Judge Mahinda Samayawardena, the Commercial High Court recently refused to consider purported confidential information submitted for the inspection of court without the same being served on the opposing party.
In an application filed under Section 160(6) of the Intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003, Sirocco Air Technologies Ltd. alleged that a former employee had obtained confidential information from it and submitted the said information to Court on a USB flash drive and sought an injunction preventing the defendant from disseminating the said information to third parties including the present employer.
The defendant has objected to the practice of submitting evidence through USB drives without pleading the same or serving it on the defendant on the basis that it is unconstitutional and that it violates the basic principles of natural justice.
After hearing the objections of the defendant, the judge held that “the Court has no knowledge to come to any independent conclusion about exclusivity or confidentiality of the said information hearing only one side, i.e. the Plaintiff in gross violation of the rule of natural justice - Audi alterem partem.”
Thishya Weragoda Attorney at Law appeared for the Defendant with Pulasthi Rupasinha, Iresh Seneviratne and Chinthaka Sugathapala, Attorneys at Law instructed by Niluka Dissanayake.
Nishan Premathiratne appeared with Naduna Wijesriwardena and Yasith Hirimburegama Attorneys at Law instructed by Sanjay Fonseka for the plaintiff.
