��һ�ǿ�����

A company owned by property developers, the , has been accused of “subterfuge” by a  tribunal after orchestrating a plan to get an employee out of the office so his phone, laptop and USB drive could be confiscated.

That employee then spent years trying to get his items back after the company downloaded his personal information from the laptop and refused to return it.

It’s a move the says was deliberately orchestrated and has recently ordered that the company, Stonewood Group Limited, pay the man $60,000 in compensation. Stonewood is owned by brothers Michael and John Chow and has purportedly $1 billion in assets.

According to the tribunal’s recently released decision, the employee, whose name is suppressed, was taken out of the office in 2019 for a coffee where he was handed a letter outlining issues with his performance.

When he returned to the office he found his work laptop, personal cellphone and USB flash drive had been taken from his desk and had been placed in the executive director, Vicki Chow’s, office.

The employee asked for his items to be returned but was only given back his cellphone and requested that he be allowed to copy his tax and medical records from his laptop and have his USB back.

Instead, the company downloaded the employee’s personal information from his laptop and had it sent it to a computer forensics company.

Eight days after the coffee performance review the man was fired from his role.

He then spent months trying to get his USB and personal information back and despite the Privacy Commissioner telling them to return it, and despite assurances from Stonewood that it had, the company never did.

In 2021 the former employee lodged a claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal alleging that the company had breached its obligations under the Privacy Act by confiscating, downloading and then keeping his personal information.

A hearing was then held in June 2022, during which Stonewood released an incomplete tranche of personal information to its former employee.

Now, the tribunal has found that the company orchestrated a situation so it could take possession of the man’s devices without his knowledge which it deemed was “manifestly unfair” and an “unreasonable intrusion” into his affairs.

“The collection of [the man’s] personal information was a deliberate act, which could be described as subterfuge, [he] was taken out of the office, while his information was collected in front of his colleagues,” the tribunal said in its decision.

“It is accepted this caused significant humiliation, given the circumstances of the collection and the nature of the personal information taken.”

The tribunal also found that Stonewood had engaged in a range of “tactics” to delay the return of the man’s information, including requiring him to provide another USB to copy it onto and then not releasing it, charging him $299 for the information but still not releasing it after he’d paid and then giving him an address to pick it up from and still not handing it over.

“The tribunal also finds that this resulted in a significant loss of dignity for [the man], whose personal information that included medical and tax information was collected by his employer unexpectedly and with no indication of when or if it would be returned, or if it would be treated confidentially.”

Chow Brothers ran brothels and strip clubs before transitioning to property investment

Stonewood Group Limited is co-founded by Michael and John Chow, known as the Chow Brothers, and purports to have close to $1 billion in assets from hotels, real estate, offices, renewable energy and infrastructure.

The brothers spent nearly 20 years running strip clubs and brothels before transitioning into property investing with the purchase of Stonewood Homes in 2016.

Stonewood Homes has been ordered to pay $60,000 in compensation to one of its former employees. Photo / Dean Purcell

During the tribunal hearing in 2022, Stonewood repeatedly alleged that the man had information and files on his laptop from other companies that it said were inappropriate. However, the tribunal only had jurisdiction to investigate the former employee’s claim that his privacy had been breached and couldn’t examine whether Stonewood had justification to do so, as it claimed.

It was Stonewood’s position that the company essentially acquired the personal information by accident in the course of reclaiming their own laptop back and downloading the information from it.

The company denied it had interfered with the man’s privacy, and while it admits confiscating his personal cellphone and work laptop - which it says it owned and had a right to - it denies taking his USB.

This is despite evidence from another employee at Stonewood who said he witnessed Vicki Chow take the USB from the employee’s desk along with his laptop and cellphone.

Jenny Chow, the human resources director at the company, gave evidence that Stonewood had no reason to collect the man’s personal information, but still confiscated his devices knowing they would likely contain that kind of information.

Company co-founder, John Chow, told the tribunal that it was part of “an orchestrated plan” to get the man out of the office so his devices could be taken from his desk.

John Chow gave evidence to the tribunal in 2022. Photo / Dean Purcell

However, both Jenny and John Chow conceded that despite knowing there would be personal information on the devices they hadn’t given any thought to the Privacy Act when they formulated and then actioned a plan to confiscate them.

Stonewood Group declined to comment for this article.

Former worker diagnosed with anxiety and depression

The former employee provided evidence to the tribunal that three weeks after his devices were taken he was formally diagnosed with anxiety and depression and was prescribed antidepressants, sleeping medication and attended counselling.

He said that the unlawful collection and retention of his personal information resulted in serious health conditions and an inability to complete his tax returns because the information he needed was on his laptop.

The tribunal found that Stonewood’s conduct exacerbated the humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings to its former employee and that a prompt return of his devices would have reduced this impact.

“Instead Stonewood effectively blocked [the man’s] attempt to obtain the return of his information…” the tribunal said.

The tribunal ordered that Stonewood pay its former employee $60,000 in compensation, made a declaration that the company had interfered with his privacy and ordered it return his personal information in full and delete it from its own devices.

The former employee said in a statement provided by his counsel, Kristin Wilson, that he was pleased to see a resolution to the matter.

“What I feel have been prolonged and sustained attacks on my privacy and dignity by Stonewood left me with no choice but to pursue this matter through the tribunal,” he said.

“Proper acknowledgement and resolution of these actions were necessary.”

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for ��һ�ǿ����� since 2022