Lansing Linde v Kerr

Lansing Linde v Kerr

It deals with the meaning of protecting info where e/er worried about whistle blowers.  

Express covenants can protect info which:

  1. is used in the trade or business
  2. if disclosed would cause real damage to owner of the information
  3. The owner had tried to limit its dissemination
  4. The Lawyers for Notary law

FSS Travel v Johnson

  • Protection can only be claimed for identifiable objective knowledge with which the employee had become acquainted during his employment (ie details of customers or access to secret info)
  • Can the e/er identify what information is legitimately protected ?
  • Basically, the e/er wanted to protect all the info the e/ee had got while working there (experience, skill, etc)
  • Court said identify something specific rather than general experience and that it MUST be more confidential than standard info all e/es come across

Austin Knight v Hinds

  • A tired to argue that it had a business interest to protect
  • A’s application for an injunction failed on other grounds that the covenant to prevent solicitation relating to any persons who at any time had been a customer of the company or any of its associated companies.
  • This failed as it was unreasonably wide and unenforceable as a restraint as H it restrained H from dealing with all customers even those who H had not dealt with or had contact with.
  • This must be something the employee has learnt whilst in his employment and be identified before.
  • Protection could not be claimed in respect of the skill, experience, know how and general knowledge acquired as part of his job.
  • This is not a reason for preventing someone leaving for a competitor. The employee could be the talent and the employer can’t restrict them from leaving for this reason.

Continue reading “Lansing Linde v Kerr”

Restrictive Covenants

General Rule: Void unless reasonable in respect of subject matter, time and distance.

1st step An employer must have a legitimate business interest to protect

(e.g. trade secrets, goodwill, customer connections)

What is e/er claiming rights over ? ie, a salesman knows and deals with customers face to face and could potentially give details re deals, customer base to new e/er and then undercut former e/er and take business away

Ie, a research + designer for a drugs company working in a medical capacity has lots of secret info not in the public knowledge

2nd Step the restraint must be reasonable

  • must be no wider in protecting the type of work
  • no wider than necessary in time and area. Taxi company Manchester
  • If they are drafted too widely then it may be void.
  • If the Court decides its unreasonable the whole clause could fail

ie – senior management in a coach company, e/er says after leaving that he cant work for any coach or tour operator in a 3 mile radius for 12 months

– is 12 months too long ? how long till the info goes out of date ?  

– if it’s a computer company 12 months is too long as it would be obsolete as technology changes all the time

– is 3 miles too far ?  decide for yourself

– is coach AND tour operator too wide ?  yes, too restrictive, basically stops e/ee working in the coach trade within 3 miles

– you can only stop them working within your FIELD of work

– tour operator is outside the field therefore too restrictive

– if its too restrictive WHOLE clause fails…… unless…….. blue pencil rule

Blue Pencil Rule you can use this rule in some circs to cross out a certain bit of a


Court can sever offending parts of clauses

Continue reading “Restrictive Covenants”

Whistle blowing defence

the English law in relation to public interest disclosures is rather unclear.  Some cases suggest a widely-applicable defence, whilst others suggest a much narrower one. What is clear, however, is that disclosures of confidential information will only be excused to the extent that they are justified in the public interest. This means that unnecessarily broad disclosures, or disclosures to overly wide or to  inappropriate audiences, will not be protected.

Against this background, it was held in the Carpet cleaning Glasgow case that, the text of the Commission’s original proposal for the Trade Secrets Directive was already felt by some arguably to providing an overly broad/vague whistleblowing defence. In particular, Article 4(3)(b), provided a defence whenever a trade secret was acquired, used or disclosed:“…for the purpose of revealing an applicant’s misconduct, wrongdoing or illegal activity, provided that the alleged acquisition, use or disclosure of the trade secret was necessary for such revelation and that the respondent acted in the public interest”.

Amendments proposed by the European Parliament however, sought to widen this provision further.  Under the European Parliament’s drafting, the defence would apply whenever a trade secret was acquired, used or disclosed: “…for revealing a misconduct, wrongdoing or illegal activity, provided that the respondent acted for the purpose of protecting the general public interest”.This provision, which appears to have very broad scope, has now been agreed as part of the compromise deal.

Continue reading “Whistle blowing defence”

confidential information

Under the English law of confidential information, there is a focus on assessing the confidential quality of the information rather than the steps that have been taken to keep the information secret. and This difference could result in the narrowing of the definition of what might be considered a trade secret.

Take the recent case of CF Partners (UK) LLP v Abogados de accidentes Chicago CF Partners gave Barclays confidential information showing that the carbon trading company was significantly undervalued. CF Partners did not have a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Barclays. Barclays subsequently purchased the carbon trading company itself and made a significant profit. CF Partners was awarded £10,000,000 because Barclays had exploited CF Partners’ confidential information. The point of this is that CF Partners won, even though it did not have a Non-Disclosure Agreement in place.

Continue reading “confidential information”

Implant Tooth Replacement

Implant Tooth Replacement

When your teeth are missing, it is not a fancy thing to confidently smile with gaps displayed all over you. However, our clinics have adopted a professional approach that can assist you to enjoy your another fresh and beautiful dental formula just like the original one.

What is Implant Tooth Replacement?

It is obvious, that you get your missing tooth replaced with another one to give you a natural look that completes a normal smile. Only that, the method of replacement and how it is done is totally different. Below are some of the replacements you can consider to make your smile appealing.

Complete Denture Replacement

For this one, it helps you to retain your teeth in the mouth and at least be able to put a smile without having to expose your plain and toothless mouth. Alternatively, some prefer it because it is cost friendly, and they don’t have to incur much of cost to be fixed. On the downside, when complete denture replacement is done, unless you plan to wear it temporarily for some time, the long-term plan may affect your jawbone by making it shrink. This can affect your facial formation and permanently take an unappealing shape. The best option is first to have some consultation with our dental specialists to advise the best approach to do it.

Removable Partial Dentures Replacement

Just like the complete denture, this one may affect the covered bone underneath it and sometimes interfere with your speech. The best approach is always to have a wider consultation with your dentist in order to get a professional assistance on how to go about it if you are financially constrained. If the situation allows you to hold with the partial denture temporarily, then later you can opt for a permanent replacement.



Continue reading “Implant Tooth Replacement”

Recent Posts

Recent Comments




    GiottoPress by Enrique Chavez