tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3793553007602356908..comments2024-03-29T11:10:02.290+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Faccenda Chickens rule the roost as judge nips Caterpillar in the budVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7731332546942322852012-01-16T23:23:16.432+00:002012-01-16T23:23:16.432+00:00The idea from Faccenda Chicken that a confidential...The idea from Faccenda Chicken that a confidentiality restraint must <br />have a time limit to be enforceable doesn't make much sense to me. <br />Shouldn't the restraint be enforceable for as long as the information remains confidential - but for a breach by the former employee? I think the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (over here in the colonies) put it well last year in Evans v. The Sports Corporation, 2011 ABQB 244 where it stated (though without citing Faccenda Chicken): <br /><br />[240] There has never been any general requirement for temporal limitations on the wrongful disclosure of truly confidential <br />or proprietary information by former employees. At common law, <br />employees may not disclose their employer’s confidences. They are only released from such obligations when the information is no longer <br />confidential or proprietary, or limitation periods have passed. It is <br />illogical to suggest that an employer must, to validly protect its confidences and proprietary information, specify a reasonable date after which a former employee is free to use the information for his own benefit and to the detriment of the former employer. These types of restrictions are not the sorts of restrictions that are prima facie in restraint of trade and void, and presumed to be unenforceable.John Simpsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51830483437262765542012-01-16T15:29:46.565+00:002012-01-16T15:29:46.565+00:00It is interesting how these issues keep on recurri...It is interesting how these issues keep on recurring in the law. Point (i) summarised in Jeremy's last bullet point is supported by Ixora v Jones [1990] FSR 251. A point which is not mentioned by Jeremy but which greatly exercised Tugendat J is the claimant's failure to serve its particular of claim on time - echoes of Hytrac Conveyors v Conveyors International [1983] FSR 63. It appears that neither of these cases was cited by counsel for the defendant, presumably because (a) he is too young to have been around in those days and (b) there is no good textbook on breach of confidence which deals with points like this. Let's hope the 2nd edition of Gurry will solve this problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2946857705379549282012-01-13T22:32:48.602+00:002012-01-13T22:32:48.602+00:00Employers are funny people. They are under the str...Employers are funny people. They are under the strange impression that they can pay you for a month or two yet own you for life. They expect you to commit your life to the company yet offer no return bargain. They expect you to abide by every dotted 'i' and crossed 't' in a contract yet in return don't believe that the term providing for a '40 hour working week' applies at all.<br /><br />Funny people, employers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com