Global Processing Services (UK) Ltd. v. Yanpolsky
[2023] EWHC 425 (KB)
In the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Media and Communications List
Case Number QB-2022-000181
Before Justice Lavender
Decided on February 28, 2023

Relevancy of the case: Injunction against the claimant’s CTO for disclosing sensitive data leading to a cyber attack

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Section 17, 18)
• The Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 170)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The claimant is a technology service provider providing payment services to clients using a platform that works with various payment card schemes.
• The first defendant worked for the claimant as Chief Technical Officer from August 18, 2014, until his resignation on January 06, 2017.
• A cyber attack targeted the claimant’s information technology systems, causing a system failure that stopped operations for 12 hours.
• The claimant blamed the first defendant for this incident. He alleged the first defendant of disclosing Exhibit’s data and sending 13 emails constituting unlawful misuse and disclosure of confidential information.
• The defendant pleaded not guilty, and the trial court convicted and sentenced them to three years and six months imprisonment.
• The claimant has applied for summary judgment and is seeking an injunction.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The claimant’s counsel submitted that:
  • The disclosed data had the necessary quality of confidence. It was also subject to an implied undertaking to the court.
• The defendant’s counsel contended that:
  • There was a public interest in their use of the disclosed data. Any implied undertaking did not apply to them because the claimant did not inform them.
  • The claimant has not suffered any loss, damage, or detriment, so this is not an appropriate case for an injunction.

Opinion of the Bench

• The court believes that the claimant does not seek any damages but seeks an injunction.
• The claimant needed this action to stop the defendants from carrying out their illegal threat. Thus, it is fitting that an injunction should be granted.

Final Decision

• The court granted summary judgment and an injunction subject to the terms.