Key takeaways

In Sierra Leone, the common law and doctrines of equity, including breach of confidence, form part of the law and are applied by the courts. This means English authorities are persuasive and often followed.

To prove misuse of confidential information, you typically show: (1) the information had the necessary quality of confidence; (2) it was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and (3) there was unauthorised use (or threatened use) causing detriment.

Employees owe equitable and contractual duties: during employment, they must not misuse confidential material; after employment, only trade secrets and truly confidential material remain protected absent an express covenant.

Knowledge and conscience matter: liability generally turns on whether the recipient knew or ought reasonably to have known the information was confidential.

Powerful remedies exist: interim/final injunctions (including springboard relief), search (Anton Piller) orders, delivery up, account of profits, damages, and Norwich Pharmacal disclosure against third parties.

Why English confidence law applies in Sierra Leone

Section 170(2) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991 expressly recognises that common law and rules of equity form part of Sierra Leone’s law, subject to the Constitution and statute. In civil disputes over confidential business information, local courts therefore look to English authorities for guidance on principles and remedies.

What counts as “confidential information” (and what does not)

The “necessary quality of confidence”

Classic authority holds that, apart from contract, information is protectable only if it has the necessary quality of confidence that is, it is not public property or public knowledge. This formulation originates in Saltman Engineering v Campbell Engineering (1948) and has been repeatedly cited in later cases and judicial writing.

The three-part Coco test

Megarry J’s well-known test in Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1969) requires: (1) confidentiality; (2) circumstances importing an obligation; and (3) unauthorised use. Courts still treat these elements as a reliable roadmap in commercial confidence disputes.

The Thomas Marshall “useful factors”

Courts often consider Sir Robert Megarry V-C’s four factors in Thomas Marshall (Exports) Ltd v Guinle (1979) for identifying protectable trade secrets: the owner’s belief in harm on disclosure, the belief the information is secret, the reasonableness of those beliefs, and industry practice. These factors remain influential and are cited in modern judgments and commentary.

Employee knowledge vs. trade secrets

In Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler (1987), the Court of Appeal distinguished between:

• trivial/public domain material;
• merely “confidential” information protectable only during employment; and
• trade secrets (or highly confidential information) protected during and after employment in the absence of express terms.

Hospitality-sector examples that often qualify if kept non-public and controlled: pricing matrices; vendor terms; marketing plans; customer segmentation and high-value guest lists; PMS/CRM reservations data and login credentials; channel-management strategies; social media and OTA account access; SOPs; and unpublished market analysis. Whether any of these are “trade secrets” depends on secrecy measures and competitive value, assessed against the Saltman/Coco principles and Faccenda’s categories.

Who owes the duty? Employees, ex-employees and third parties

Employees and ex-employees

Employees owe an implied duty of fidelity and confidence. During employment, they must not misuse confidential material. Post-employment, absent a valid restrictive covenant, only trade secrets (and information of like status) remain protected as such; “skill and knowledge” acquired may be used unless it would reveal a protected trade secret. Faccenda is the leading authority.

Third parties on notice

A third party who knows or ought to know information is confidential can be restrained from using or publishing it. The Spycatcher decision (Attorney-General v Guardian/Observer (No 2)) confirms that equity binds not just primary recipients but also downstream recipients with notice, subject to public interest and prior-publication limits.

The knowledge requirement

The Supreme Court in Vestergaard Frandsen v Bestnet emphasised that liability for breach of confidence is fault-based: a person is not liable without knowledge (actual or constructive) that the information is confidential. This is particularly relevant where a newcomer joins a competing venture set up by others.

“No self-help”: unauthorised access is itself a breach

Imerman v Tchenguiz (2010) confirms it is a breach of confidence to examine, copy, retain or supply another’s confidential documents without authority even between spouses underscoring that covertly harvesting business emails, PMS log-ins, or stored credentials is impermissible.

Interim relief: stopping the damage fast

The American Cyanamid threshold

For any interim injunction (including confidence cases), the court asks whether there is a serious question to be tried, whether damages are an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lies. This flexible standard comes from American Cyanamid v Ethicon (HL 1975).

Search (Anton Piller) orders

Where there is a real risk evidence will be destroyed, courts can order a search and preservation of evidence without notice the famous Anton Piller jurisdiction (now “search orders”). Used cautiously, it is powerful in trade-secret cases to secure devices, files, and paper records.

Springboard injunctions

Springboard relief prevents a defendant from enjoying an unfair head start gained by prior misuse of confidential information (often for a limited period). Foundational authorities include Terrapin v Builders’ Supply (1967) and Roger Bullivant Ltd v Ellis (1987), and modern guidance from Forse v Secarma (CA 2019); courts also refer to Lansing Linde v Kerr (1991) when considering interim springboard relief and timing.

Final relief: what the claimant can get

• Permanent injunctions restraining further use/disclosure of specific information identified as confidential or as a trade secret. Douglas v Hello! (HL 2007) confirms that obligations of confidence can persist even after some publication, where exclusivity remains protectable.
• Delivery up / destruction of confidential materials (physical and digital) and orders for accounts/passwords to restore access and control. These are standard ancillary orders in misuse cases.
• Account of profits as an equitable gain-based remedy where the defendant profited from misuse awarded in Spycatcher against a newspaper, illustrating availability alongside (or instead of) compensatory damages.
• Damages / inquiry as to damages to compensate financial loss caused by misuse. (Assessments are fact-sensitive and may run with a confidentiality ring to protect the very information at issue.)
• Norwich Pharmacal orders to compel innocent third parties (e.g., ISPs, platforms, payment processors) to disclose the identity of wrongdoers and assist in tracing misuse.

Privacy cross-over (media/publicity)

Where the information concerns personal privacy rather than pure commerce, courts may frame the claim as misuse of private information; the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN (2004) refashioned the analysis (Articles 8/10 ECHR), though many principles overlap with confidence. For businesses, the practical point is that confidential client data and guest health data attract robust protection in either framework.

Sierra Leone context: statutory complements

While breach of confidence is an equitable doctrine, Sierra Leone’s newer legislation also touches secrecy and information handling. Notably, the Cyber Security and Crime Act, 2021 (Act No. 7 of 2021) includes offences concerning unauthorised access and certain service-provider disclosure duties, offering criminal-law backstops to civil confidence claims where digital systems are abused.

Practical playbook for hospitality businesses

Define & classify: maintain an information asset register distinguishing ordinary operational data from trade secrets (e.g., dynamic pricing algorithms, key vendor rebates). Apply least-privilege access. (Maps to Saltman/Coco and Faccenda.)

Contractual armour: robust employment confidentiality clauses, and post-termination restrictions (reasonable in scope, duration, geography). (Post-employment protection otherwise relies on the “trade secret” category.)

Operational controls: secure PMS/CRM, channel-manager and social accounts (unique credentials; MFA; audit logs). Never share admin logins; configure role-based access. (Imerman illustrates how unauthorised copying itself breaches confidence.)

On-/off-boarding: collect devices; rotate passwords/APIs; confirm deletion/return of materials; run exit interviews with signed acknowledgements.

Incident response: if misuse is suspected, move quickly for interim injunctions, search orders and, where identities are unknown, Norwich Pharmacal disclosure. Preserve forensics to support American Cyanamid arguments.

Enforcement strategy: combine springboard relief to neutralise any unfair head-start with account of profits and delivery up, tailoring the mix to your evidence and business timelines.

Quick reference

How courts apply these principles to typical hospitality disputes

Reservations and CRM data: Guest lists, spend, preferences and OTA deal terms often pass the Saltman threshold and, with proper protection, may be “trade secrets,” especially when structured and non-public. Misuse to seed a competing hotel can justify injunctions and springboard relief.

Digital access & logins: Taking or copying admin credentials or downloading back-end reports without authority breaches confidence even before any publication or commercial use, per Imerman’s “no self-help” principle.

Former GM or marketing head joins a competitor: Absent enforceable covenants, courts distinguish fair use of skills from misuse of specific secrets (Faccenda). Where the move involved pre-departure harvesting of data, springboard injunctions are apt to neutralise the head-start.

Checklist for claiming (or defending) breach of confidence

• Identify with precision the datasets/processes alleged to be confidential (avoid vague categories). Link each to why disclosure would cause real competitive harm.
• Evidence secrecy: access controls, markings, training, and need-to-know distribution. (Courts look for real, consistent steps.)
• Show use or threatened use: emails, device forensics, overlapping marketing campaigns, diverted bookings, or cloned SOPs. Then seek interim relief promptly.
• Consider ancillary orders: search to preserve evidence, Norwich Pharmacal to unmask facilitators (cloud hosts, payment gateways), and confidentiality rings for disclosure.
• Frame remedies: combine springboard (time-limited) with delivery up and, where profits are shown, an account; plead damages in the alternative.

Authorities cited (illustrative, by topic)

Foundations: Prince Albert v Strange (injunction protecting private etchings; early confidence case); Saltman (quality of confidence); Coco (three elements).

Employment: Faccenda Chicken (categories; post-employment use); Thomas Marshall v Guinle (trade-secret factors).

Knowledge: Vestergaard (recipient must know/ought to know info is confidential).

No self-help: Imerman (barring unauthorised inspection/copying of confidential files).

Media/private information overlap: Campbell v MGN; Douglas v Hello!.

Public interest and prior publication: AG v Guardian/Observer (Spycatcher) (account of profits; limits where material is already public).

Interim relief mechanics: American Cyanamid (test for interlocutory injunctions); Anton Piller (search orders).

Springboard: Terrapin, Roger Bullivant v Ellis, Forse v Secarma; timing guidance linked to Lansing Linde.

Third-party disclosure: Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction.

Sierra Leone statutes (criminal-law backstop): Cyber Security and Crime Act, 2021.

For hospitality operators in Sierra Leone, the safest course is to treat commercial data like an asset: label it, limit it, log it, and litigate promptly if it is taken or used. The common-law tools refined by English authority and applicable in Sierra Leone are well-suited to protect genuine secrets and to neutralise any unfair head-start gained by their misuse. This article is informational and not legal advice; for a live dispute, obtain counsel to tailor pleadings, evidence and relief to your facts.