Relevant Information

What Corporate Liability Means Under UK Law

Under UK law, companies can be held responsible not only for what their directors do, but also for what their employees do on behalf of the business. This principle is known as corporate liability and encompasses a number of legal doctrines, including:

Vicarious Liability (Employer Responsibility)

A company may be liable for wrongful acts committed by an employee if those acts were:

  • carried out in the course of their employment,
  • connected to their role or duties, or
  • done in a way that benefitted, or was intended to benefit, the company.

This applies even if the company did not instruct, approve, or know about the behaviour at the time.

Data Protection & GDPR Liability

If an employee, acting in their role, mishandles or unlawfully accesses data, the employer can be held accountable under:

  • UK GDPR,
  • Data Protection Act 2018, and
  • ICO regulatory powers.

The company must prove it had sufficient safeguards, training, oversight, and internal controls.

Criminal Liability (Corporate Offences)

In certain circumstances, a company can face scrutiny under:

  • the Fraud Act 2006,
  • Computer Misuse Act 1990,
  • Bribery Act 2010,
  • or relevant cybercrime legislation,

if misconduct occurred within the scope of employment or due to failures of governance.

Civil Liability (Lawsuits & Claims)

A company may be sued directly for:

  • misuse of confidential information,
  • breach of confidence,
  • negligent supervision,
  • inducing breaches of contract,
  • defamation carried out by staff,
  • or economic loss caused to others.

Why This Matters Here

Because the individual interviewed by Essex Police was:

  • employed by Palm PR at the time,
  • performing duties connected to digital work,
  • and was the subject of a court-approved search warrant relating to access of systems belonging to my company,

his conduct, depending on what the investigation ultimately finds, may fall within the legal framework where employer liability becomes relevant.

No allegations are made here.

These are established principles of UK law, included for public understanding and transparency.

Why This Matters for Palm PR’s Leadership

While all matters remain under active investigation, there are several reasons why the situation surrounding Richard Nyande’s police interview and subsequent departure is relevant to Palm PR’s leadership, including its director, Emily Keogh.

Leadership Sign-Off and Oversight Duties

Directors have statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006, including:

  • duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence,
  • duty to ensure proper oversight of staff,
  • duty to protect company assets and client data,
  • duty to prevent conflicts of interest or misconduct.

If wrongdoing occurred within the business structure, the question becomes:

Did leadership exercise adequate control, supervision, and governance?

The Timing Raises Questions for Investigators

The factual timeline is:

  • A court-approved search warrant was executed.
  • A company employee was interviewed under caution.
  • Shortly afterwards, he ceased employment at Palm PR.

Investigators routinely examine sequences like this when assessing whether:

  • a company culture enabled or ignored problematic behaviour,
  • internal policies were adequate,
  • leadership failed to take action when risks emerged,
  • or whether the conduct was isolated or symptomatic of broader issues.

Again, no conclusion, just the reality of how investigators and regulators approach these matters.

Reputational Management vs. Actual Engagement

Palm PR’s public response to serious matters has so far focused on:

  • scripted PR statements,
  • dismissive or inaccurate claims,
  • and attempts to shift blame to “difficult circumstances” or “misunderstandings”.

What is notably absent is:

  • meaningful engagement,
  • genuine dispute resolution,
  • or any substantive explanation of the events now under regulatory and police scrutiny.

This contrast, PR posturing vs. documented evidence, is itself a red flag for anyone evaluating the company’s integrity.

The Risk to Clients, Partners, and Stakeholders

If the investigation were ultimately to find that misconduct occurred in connection with an employee’s professional duties, clients may question:

  • how their data was handled,
  • whether staff operating on their accounts were properly supervised,
  • whether leadership exercised appropriate controls,
  • and why warning signs were overlooked.

This is why transparency here is in the public interest.

Why Leadership Cannot Distance Themselves

Directors cannot simply disclaim responsibility when issues arise.

Even if a company argues an employee acted independently, regulators ask:

  • Were safeguards in place?
  • Did leadership know or should they have known?
  • Was this a failure of governance?
  • Did management benefit from the employee’s actions?
  • Did the company fail to prevent foreseeable violations?

These are legitimate questions that arise from documented facts – not allegations.