Six interim injunctions granted against former employees of Acquest

Prevented from using and disclosing of confidential commercially business sensitive information and misrepresenting to clients

On 30 November, the Commercial High Court granted six interim injunctions against former employees of Acquest Ltd., restraining them from using and or disclosing the confidential business information of Acquest and preventing them from misrepresenting to clients of Acquest that they have any affiliation with Acquest. 

Acquest through three separate cases which had been instituted before the Commercial High Court though Plaints dated 8 June 2016 submitted to the Court that Acquest manages an exclusive clientele of high net worth individuals both local and foreign including institutional investors, property developers, including Sri Lankan expatriates, corporates, diplomatic missions and international NGOs. 

Acquest had pleaded that it currently brokers over 60% of all the transactions that take place in the high-end secondary condominium market and in addition manages 7% of all the high end apartments in Colombo which inter alia includes currently over 90 units with the overall value of the properties exceeding $ 40 million.

Acquest in  addition also had stated that it acts as the exclusive agent for many premium properties such as penthouses and prime landed residential and commercial properties and has also been engaged directly as the main real-estate sales company outside of the internal sales team for residences at the Colombo City Centre project, Bullers Lane Residencies Colombo 7 and also has  provided services for upcoming luxury developments such as Rarus Apartments, Waterfront Properties, Altair Residences and Union Place Apartments. 

Acquest had set out to the Court that the company’s success has been pivotal owing to its commercially-sensitive confidential information which involves inter alia details of pricing, client details and their requirements, profit margins, business plans, etc., which have been kept confidential and only made privy subject to non-disclosure agreements entered with the employees.

In this backdrop Acquest complained to the Court through these cases that Shawn Timothy, Sithmy de Silva and Viduranga Hewaga have pursuant to their surprising resignation resorted to use the commercially-sensitive business information of Acquest to siphon clients of the Plaintiff and engage in dishonest trade practices which are deemed unlawful in terms of the chapter of unfair competition in the Intellectual Property Act which was also a violation of the NDAs. Acquest in the Plaint had annexed several evidentiary materials including affidavits to establish the dishonest trade practices of the Defendants.

At the very outset when the three cases were supported on 9 June 2016, the Learned High Court Judge Gamini Amarasekera (now presiding Lordship in the Court of Appeal) being satisfied with matters placed before Court granted the ex parte enjoining orders against the Defendants in the three separate cases subject to the confidential commercially sanative information being deposited in Court under confidential cover. 

Pursuant thereto the Defendants appeared before Court and through their respective objections tendered in respect of the interim injunctions took up the position that the real estate business does not require any confidential commercially-sensitive information, moreover that the information, which Acquest is complaining about is in the public domain.

However, having considered the pleadings of the parties before Court and the Written Submissions filed by the parties, the Learned Judge of the Commercial High Court Samayawardhena J proceeded to grant separate interim injunctions against Shawn Timothy, Sithmy de Silva and Viduranga Hewaga to the effect of preventing each of them using the undisclosed business sensitive information obtained from Acquest during the course of the employment, and also through a separate injunction restrained each of them from soliciting clients of Acquest that Defendant had dealings with, misrepresenting to such clients that the Defendants were still in employment with Acquest. 

The Defendants have moved to file their answers in the respective. The interim injunctions are in force and valid until the end of the trial.

Counsel Nishan Premathiratne appeared with Nadun Wijesiriwardena and Yasith Hirimburegama on the instructions of Attorneys-at-Law Sanjaya Fonseka and Peummi Premathiratne for Acquest.