Confidential commercial terms were reaching a competitor with a regularity that could not be coincidence. Working quietly alongside counsel, we identified the source without alerting the individual — and preserved the evidence the client needed.
The client had begun to notice a pattern. Commercial terms negotiated in restricted meetings were appearing — in slightly altered form — in a competitor's proposals shortly afterwards. At first it was possible to attribute this to coincidence, or to good intelligence work on the other side. By the time the client approached us, the pattern had repeated itself often enough that coincidence was no longer a plausible account.
The difficulty was familiar: suspicion without evidence is not an actionable position, and an investigation conducted clumsily — or one that became known internally — would compromise any future legal or disciplinary proceedings and, very possibly, the business relationships the client needed to protect. The instruction was clear: find the source, and do it without anyone knowing the search was under way.
We began where the information itself began — mapping the population of individuals with access to the specific terms that had leaked, and at which points in the process that access arose. Access records alone rarely resolve a matter of this kind; what they do is narrow the field and introduce sequence. We then worked outward, examining the external connections of those within the narrowed group — professional history, affiliations, and the kinds of relationships that create both motive and opportunity.
One individual's profile became progressively more material as the analysis developed. External associations that were not immediately visible from internal records, combined with the timing of access against the timing of leaks, produced a picture that was consistent, coherent, and — importantly — documented. We were careful throughout to work from lawful sources and to maintain a clear audit trail of our methodology, so that nothing we produced could later be challenged as speculative or improperly obtained.
Throughout, the client's legal counsel was kept informed at each stage, allowing them to shape what was preserved and in what form — a step that is often neglected but that materially affects what can be done with the findings afterwards.
The client received a structured report identifying the probable source, with the underlying evidence organised in a form counsel could use directly. The individual was not approached by us; that step belonged to the client and their lawyers, and it proceeded on their terms. The matter was resolved discreetly, without employment tribunal exposure becoming the dominant risk, and without the investigation itself becoming known within the organisation. As far as the client's colleagues were aware, nothing had happened.
Names, places, sums and dates are altered to protect client confidentiality. We never confirm a client or a case; this is the kind of problem we solve.
One confidential message is enough. Tell us only what you are comfortable sharing — we take it from there.
Make a confidential enquiry