Commercial Plastics Ltd v Vincent: CA 1964

When considering whether an employer could misuse information learned in one employment in a later one the court thought that the defendant would be likely, when the need arose, to dredge up from the recesses of his memory’ the particular item of information’, and ‘It is clear from the authorities that the plaintiffs were not entitled to impose a restriction which would prevent the defendant from using in competition with the plaintiffs the skill and aptitude and general technical knowledge acquired by him in his employment by the plaintiffs.’ and ‘The plaintiffs’ scheme of organisation and methods of business are not to be counted as trade secrets, but fall into the same class as the general technical knowledge referred to above.’
Pearson LJ said: ‘the time for ascertaining the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant . . is the time of the making of the contract’ and , by reference to what the restraint entitles or requires the party to do, rather than what they intend to do or have actually done.
Pearson LJ
[1964] 3 WLR 820, [1964] 3 All ER 546, [1965] 1 QB 623
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThomas v Farr Plc and Another CA 20-Feb-2007
The employee, the former chairman of the company, appealed a finding that his contract which restricted his being employed for one year in the same field after termination, was valid and enforceable. The company had provided insurance services to . .
CitedBluebell Apparel Ltd v Dickinson SCS 14-Oct-1977
The former employee challenged a restriction on his post employment career.
Held: The restriction was world-wide and as such tooo wide, and unenforceable. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.249227