Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society v Houston
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 1900 |
| Date | 02 November 1900 |
| Docket Number | No. 12. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Pearson, Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Young, Lord Trayner.
Master and ServantUse by servant after leaving service of information obtained during serviceImplied ContractConfidentiality.
Evidence on a consideration of which it was held (aff. judgment of Lord Pearson, diss. Lord Young) that a person who had been the agent of a friendly society was not entitled, after he had left the society's service, to give written lists of the members of the society to the officials of a rival society.
The Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society was a friendly society established in 1843, and incorporated under the Friendly Societies Acts. The society had a large business throughout Great Britain; its invested funds being over 1,000,000, and its membership about 1,500,000. Its main business was to enable the members, by means of weekly or monthly subscriptions, to ensure a payment on the death of a member or a member's child, or an endowment upon either attaining a certain age. It conducted and promoted its business by means of local collectors, each of whom had a separate list of members in his collecting-book, and collected on a separate round weekly or fortnightly. Each group of collectors was under the supervision of a sub-agent, who checked their collecting-books, tested the business, and made reports to the district manager.
Samuel Houston entered the service of the society in 1894, when he became a sub-agent in the Border District. In March 1896 he was appointed to a sub-agency in Fife, which included Alloa, Dunfermline, and Kirkcaldy, and the parts adjoining. This he held until February 1898, when Kirkcaldy and its neighbourhood were withdrawn from his sub-agency. His salary was 2 a-week, and his engagement was terminable on a week's notice. It was in fact terminated as on 30th March 1898 by letter from the district manager, dated 23d March 1898.
On 28th December 1898 the Society, and three persons as its trustees, raised an action against Houston, concluding for decree ordaining the defender to deliver to the pursuers all letters, documents, or copies of documents having reference to the business of the pursuers, including all lists of members of the pursuers' society, and all extracts, excerpts, or copies made from the books, registers, or cards used in connection with the pursuers' business, and to which the defender had access while in the pursuers' employment as a sub-agent, between on or about 18th October 1894 and 30th March 1898. And in particular for decree ordaining the defender to deliver to the pursuers all lists at present in his possession, containing the names of the members of pursuers' society who reside in Kirkcaldy, Dysart, Gallatown, Pathhead, Methil, or Leven, all in the county of Fife, and also in Alloa, in the county of Clackmannan: And further, for interdict against the defender communicating to third parties, without the pursuers' consent or to their prejudice, any information relating to the business or affairs of the pursuers, obtained by him while acting in the employment of the pursuers: And in particular for interdict against the defender delivering lists of the pursuers' members to the agents of the Royal Liver Friendly Society, or to any other third party; and for 50 as damages.
The pursuers averred;(Cond. 4) In consequence of his dismissal from the pursuers' employment, the defender conceived a violent animus against the society, and he endeavoured in various ways to injure the society's business. While acting as sub-agent in Fifeshire, the defender had full access to all the books and documents belonging to the society, and he thereby obtained information on private and confidential matters connected with the society's business. (Cond. 5) In breach of his duty and in violation of the rights of the pursuers, the defender made copies or extracts from the books and documents relating to the Fifeshire business, and in particular he made a list of the society's members in Fifeshire and in the Alloa district, which he secretly retained when his duties as sub-agent terminated. This he did for the purpose of using said lists to injure the society's business. (Cond. 6) In April 1898 the defender called on Mr William Hawthorn Queen, Dunfermline, who is the district manager there of the Royal Liver Friendly Society, and furnished him with a list of the pursuers' members in Fifeshire. The defender disclosed the said private and confidential information for the said purpose of injuring the pursuers' business. In consequence of said disclosure of information and names by the defender a large number of pursuers' members have been canvassed by the agents of other societies for the purpose of inducing them to leave the pursuers' society, and a considerable quantity of business has been lost to the pursuers. The defender still retains lists of the pursuers' subscribers in the Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy district, and also in the Alloa district, and the defender has frequently threatened to the society's officials to do further damage, by means of the use of said lists, to the society's business.
The defender denied these averments.
The pursuers pleaded, inter alia;(1) The defender being illegally in possession of documents or copies of documents which are the property of the pursuers, and which contain private information relative to the business of the pursuers, they are entitled to decree for delivery of the same, in terms of the conclusions of the summons. (2) The defender having improperly and illegally disclosed confidential information relative to the affairs of the society to third parties, and having thereby caused loss, injury, and damage to the pursuers, they are entitled to decree of interdict, as craved.
The defender pleaded, inter alia;(3) The defender having no property in his possession or under his control belonging to the pursuers, is entitled to be assoilzied, with expenses. (4) The defender not having done, and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal In The Cause Coulters Property Limited Against Mark Ellison Coulter
...of trust he may not use his power directly or indirectly to benefit himself (eg Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society v Houston (1900) 3 F 42). Indeed, the expression, a conflict of interest, is an illustration of that underlying fiduciary relationship. But none of these other implied t......
-
Sietech Hearing Limited V. Russell Borland+james Eley+digital Hearing (uk) Limited
...of delivery should not be granted. In support of that proposition he referred to Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society v Houston (1900) 3 F 42 in which the pursuers sought inter alia decree of delivery for return to them of lists of members in the hands of their former agent. Reference ......
-
Pavlov v. The New Zealand and Australian Lamb Company Limited,
...true 2021-11-05T18:31:27Z Standard 034a106e-6316-442c-ad35-738afd673d2b cddc1229-ac2a-4b97-b78a-0e5cacb5865c be07a463-3f42-4de3-8197-a0001237bd29 96 false 6 pt 2 false false false EN-CA JA X-NONE