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:
- is used in the trade or business
- if disclosed would cause real damage to owner of the information
- The owner had tried to limit its dissemination
- 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.