Category: Austin Knight v Hinds

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”

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

    Archives

    Categories

    Meta

    GiottoPress by Enrique Chavez