Scentrics Information Security Technologies Ltd v Adam

Where an injunction permits a party to retain another person’s electronic equipment for examination, copying or deletion, retention must remain limited to the period reasonably required for those purposes. The court must balance the evidential and forensic advantages of imaging the equipment against the owner’s practical, professional and personal interests in recovering it. Continued possession may be permitted for a strictly limited period, subject to safeguards such as supervised access, prompt return, reporting obligations and compensation on account of potential liability under a cross-undertaking in damages.

Scentrics obtained a without-notice injunction restraining Marlena Adam from dealing with alleged confidential information and requiring her to hand over two laptops, an external backup drive and a USB stick. The order permitted Scentrics and its advisers to examine the equipment, upload necessary material, delete confidential information and return the equipment as soon as reasonably practicable.

Adam applied under paragraph 6 of the order for the immediate return of the laptops and backup drive. She relied on her need to access work for other clients, demonstrate previous work when seeking employment, gather evidence for the proceedings and protect highly private material. Scentrics sought further time to engage an independent IT specialist to image and process the equipment.

1. Application granted in part. Scentrics was permitted to retain the equipment for a strictly limited further period so that independent IT imaging and deletion could be completed, but the existing order was varied to protect Adam’s interests.
2. Independent imaging was highly desirable because it would provide an independent record of the relevant data and a source from which wrongly deleted material could be restored. That evidential benefit did not justify unrestricted or indefinite retention.
3. The experts were required to mirror and delete the external backup drive first, use their best endeavours, provide a narrative report of all dealings with it and return it forthwith on completion. If it had not been returned by 4pm on 2 September 2016, Adam was to receive supervised access to download material relating to earlier work for other clients and material reasonably required to substantiate a CV.
4. All equipment was required to be returned by 4pm on 9 September 2016, whether or not it had been imaged, uploaded or processed.
5. The continuation of the order was conditional on Scentrics paying Adam £2,000 by 4pm on 2 September 2016 on account of any compensation, counterclaim or costs award. The condition reflected the unusually prolonged retention, the delayed search for an IT specialist, the failed negotiations for the equipment’s sale and Adam’s reasonable purchase of a replacement computer.