HomeAccessibilityIndependent approachTurnaround timeCommunication skillsFee structures
solicitors - commercial legal work

Arbitration & mediation
Assets/shares buy/sell
Business start ups
Commercial & transactions
Company law & compliance
Competition law (UK & EU)
Confidentiality & privacy
Construction & building
Contracts drafting
Conveyancing (commercial)
Copyright (infringement & licensing)
Debt recovery & winding up
Designs (registration & infringement)
Directors' duties & liabilities
E-commerce contracts
Employment (contracts, regulations & claims)
Franchising
Intellectual property
Joint ventures
Libel (defamation)
Licensing (premises)
Litigation (commercial)
Music & entertainment
Negligence (general)
Partnerships
Passing-off claims
Patents (infringement)
Planning representation
Professional (regulatory)
Professional negligence
Reinsurance & insurance
Shareholders
Software (licensing)
Sports contracts
Trade marks (trademarks)

Confidential information - termination of employment - information acquired used to establish new business - absence of post termination restraint clause H invented a ventilator for patients with breathing disorders.

To market the invention, H and his two brothers set up DA and three other Liechtenstein companies and a UK subsidiary. The companies entered into agreements with outside investors, which restricted sales and marketing activities and imposed non competition clauses on H and his brothers.

Subsequently, H had a dispute with his brothers and was removed as a director. He then set up another company to manufacture a new ventilator embodying more advanced features than that sold by DA whose sales deteriorated as a result. DA sued H for misusing confidential information and breach of fiduciary duty.
 
Held, refusing the claims, that H was only bound for the duration of his contract of employment as there was no term to prevent him using the confidential information in his memory post termination. H could therefore use that information as it formed part of his acquired skill and knowledge.
 
DA had failed to show that H had used information that could be described as trade secrets in his new business, Faccenda Chicken Ltd v. Fowler [1987] Ch. 117, [1996] C.L.Y. 1167, Ocular Sciences Ltd v. Aspect Vision Care Ltd (No 2) [1997] R.P.C. 289, [1997] C.L.Y. 3894, FSS Travel & Leisure Systems Ltd v. Johnson [1998] I.R.L.R. 382, [1998], C.L.Y. 2193 and AT Poeton (Gloucester Plating) Ltd v. Horton [2000] I.C.R. 1208, [2001] C.L.Y. 4064 applied.

The claim for breach fiduciary duty failed as a director who resigned could not be put in a worse position than an employee who could not be prevented from using information acquired during his previous employment. Dranez Anstalt v. Hayek [2002] 1 B.C.L.C. 693, Evans-Lombe, J.,Ch D.

"Current Law" October 2002

E-mail us with details of your enquiry on confidentiality@humphreys.co.uk
Include your telephone number,
fax number and address.

Tel (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2662 
Fax (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2722




Relevant Material



Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol



Also recommended by The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East and Africa 2009 - 2010.


Click here for information about the work we do for private clients.

© Copyright Humphreys & Co. Solicitors

Home Page