Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
ABK Ltd v Foxwell
[2002] EWHC 9 (Ch), [2002] All ER (D) 103 (Jan)
Court: Ch D
Judgment Date: 18/01/2002
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Considered | Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler | [1985] 1 All ER 724, [1985] FSR 105, [1984] ICR 589, [1984] IRLR 61 | Ch D | circa 1985 | |
Applied | Nova Plastics Ltd v Froggatt | [1982] IRLR 146 | EAT | circa 1982 | |
Applied | Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd | [1968] FSR 415, [1969] RPC 41 | Ch D | circa 1968 | |
Considered | Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd | [1946] Ch 169, [1946] 1 All ER 350, 115 LJ Ch 241, 90 Sol Jo 175, 174 LT 422, 62 TLR 231 | CA | circa 1946 |
Catchwords & Digest
EQUITY - BREACH OF CONFIDENCE - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - CLAIM AGAINST FIRST DEFENDANT ALLEGING BREACH OF HIS DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE OF CLAIMANT - CLAIMANT CONTENDING THAT GIVING OF ANY ASSISTANCE BY AN EMPLOYEE TO TRADE COMPETITOR OF HIS EMPLOYER, EVEN THOUGH GIVEN IN HIS SPARE TIME, BREACH OF EMPLOYEE'S DUTY - WHETHER WRONGFUL DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - WHETHER BREACH OF DUTY OF FIDELITY
In the proceedings before the court the claimant company sought various forms of relief against the first defendant, who used to work for the claimant, and against the second defendant company whose interests were said to have been improperly promoted as a result of its involvement with the first defendant. The claim against the first defendant was put as one of breach of his duties as an employee of the claimant, wrongful disclosure of the claimant's confidential information and breach of his duties of fidelity. The claim against the second defendant was that it had knowingly made use of a business opportunity of the claimant which had been wrongfully disclosed to it by the first defendant and had knowingly received and used for its own benefit confidential information belonging to the claimant. The claimant contended that the giving of any assistance by an employee to a trade competitor of his employer, even though given in the employee's spare time involved a breach of the employee's duty to the employer.
Held - The action would be dismissed.While the employee remained in the employment of the employer the obligations were included in the implied term which imposed a duty of good faith and fidelity on the employee. The implied term which imposed an obligation on the employee as to his conduct after the determination of the employment was more restricted in its scope than that which imposed a general duty of good faith. The obligation did not extend to cover all information which was given to or acquired by the employee while in his employment, and in particular might not cover information which was only 'confidential' in the sense that an unauthorised disclosure of such information to a third party while the employment subsisted would be a clear breach of the duty of good faith. However, there was no implied term that a man was expected loyally to work for an employer and that any work for a competitor would be regarded as being in breach of trust or failing to give loyal service. There was no implication other than that a man was expected to give loyal service and not do anything which could create substantial harm to his employer. The issue whether particular conduct amounted to a breach of an employee's obligations was one of fact and degree. In the instant case the relevant disclosures of information could not be said to have involved a breach of confidence on the part of the first defendant because they all related to matters in the public domain. Although the first defendant was in breach of his contract in going to work for the second defendant in June and July 2001 it had no significant practical consequences for the purposes of the instant proceedings and notwithstanding that breach there was no relief which ought to be granted against him. The claim against the second defendant failed on the facts.
