Anonymised respondents (2, incl. ex-employee)
Breach of s.24(1) found; referred to police (s.20). DPO, 28 April 2015.
The facts
A real estate company complained that its ex-employee and the competing real estate business run by her husband were using confidential client information she had acquired during her employment, without the company's authority. The respondents refused to give statements, first citing Supreme Court proceedings, which the complainant won on 30 May 2014, and then through a new attorney. The Commissioner found it proven that the first respondent unlawfully disclosed personal data in her possession and that both respondents processed clients' information without seeking valid consent, though the second respondent's posting of property images covered by signed agency agreements was within the law.
Orders and outcome
The matter was referred to the police for prosecution of both respondents for acting as data controllers without any legal right to do so. Dated 28 April 2015.
Cite this decision
Track Mauritius enforcement
Free: a monthly digest of new verified decisions in your chosen jurisdictions. You confirm by email before anything is sent; every alert has an unsubscribe link. Privacy · Terms.