SIUK Lanka obtains enjoining orders restraining illegally-obtained data use by ex-employee

The plaintiff, SIUK Lanka Ltd., instituted legal proceedings in respect of an ex-employee, the defendant, who had violated the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff by stealing the plaintiff’s data.

The plaintiff’s position, as set out in its plaint, is that they are the Sri Lankan branch of the world-renowned “SIUK Global”, a United Kingdom-based international education consultant organisation, which works with universities and higher education institutions and helps students with the application and selection process for foreign universities including inter alia in the UK, USA, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Dubai. Operating since 2006 and now having over 90 offices in over 40 countries across the world, “SIUK Global” has partnerships with over 100 universities worldwide and assists more than 10,000 students annually.

The plaintiff set out how it, as the Sri Lankan agent of “SIUK Global”, has branches in Colombo and Jaffna, with international education consultants who are fully experienced and trained by trusted university partners and the British Council, who assist and advise prospective students through the entire application process to foreign universities, language schools or colleges, in order to fulfil the ambitions of applicants to achieve their educational goals. 

The defendant had joined the plaintiff’s Colombo office in March 2024 as an Executive, and had immediately begun liaising with prospective students hoping to study abroad, and had been entrusted with confidential plaintiff company information and prospective student information, which the defendant was duty-bound to keep confidential under the defendant’s employment and confidentiality agreements with the plaintiff.

However, as set out in the plaint, the defendant had attempted to resign under suspicious and hasty circumstances in June 2024. Upon inspection of the plaintiff company email and plaintiff company-issued mobile phone which the defendant had used during her period of employment, the defendant had transferred plaintiff company emails, student leads and over a 100 CVs of applicants who were dealing with the plaintiff, to her personal email account and personal mobile phone WhatsApp accounts respectively, and had deleted such information off of the plaintiff company email account and plaintiff company phone WhatsApp account as well. It was also discovered that the defendant had attempted to encourage employees of the plaintiff company to leave the employment of the plaintiff company and work elsewhere with the defendant in unknown external ventures.

In this manner, whilst in employment of the plaintiff company, the defendant had taken undisclosed/confidential/commercially sensitive business information of the plaintiff company, in violation of her employment and confidentiality agreements with the plaintiff company while in the course of employment of the plaintiff company, in a gravely dishonest, illegal and unlawful manner clearly with an intention to encroach upon and “poach” the plaintiff’s clientele, as well as attempting to “poach” the plaintiff’s employees, contrary to the Intellectual Property rights of the plaintiff, as represented in the plaint.

When the matter was supported in the Commercial High Court on 8 August, High Court Judge Priyantha Fernando, being satisfied with the plaintiff’s stance, granted enjoining orders in respect of the defendant preventing the defendant from taking out or disclosing any of the undisclosed/confidential/commercially sensitive business information of the plaintiff as well as preventing the defendant from soliciting the employees of the plaintiff company. 

The matter was fixed for summons returnable for 22 August, where proxy for the defendant was filed and the objections of the defendant are due to be tendered on 23 September. The enjoining orders granted were also extended till 23 September.

The plaintiff was represented in Court by Counsel Nishan Premathiratne AAL with Migara Cabral, AAL and Dilmi Jayatissa, AAL on the instructions of Subhashini Pathiranage, AAL. 

The defendant was represented by Gamindu Karunasena AAL.