Confidential information

Know-how vs confidential information

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

In an article entitled “is your confidential information really confidential” we discussed what is and isn’t confidential information and how this term is nearly always misused.  This article discusses a category of confidential information known as “know-how” and what rights employers have over it.

So what precisely is know-how?

Know-how is information that is confidential “but which once learned necessarily remains in the servant’s head and becomes a part of his own skill and knowledge applied in the court of his master’s business”.[1]  The Courts have recognised that know-how forms part of an employee’s acquired or inherent state of knowledge.  While employers are entitled to protect their confidential information from being used by former employees to their detriment, this interest must be balanced against the:

prima facie right of any person to use and exploit for the purpose of earning his living all the skill, experience and knowledge which he has at his disposal, including skill, expertise and knowledge which he has acquired in the course of previous periods of employment.[2]

In other words, know-how is the accumulated knowledge of how to do something, and is usually acquired through work experience.  Know-how travels with an employee, and if an organisation wishes to restrain the use of know-how, the issue needs careful and specific legal consideration.

The know-how versus confidential information dichotomy

In an employer-employee context, there is a distinction between ‘know-how’ and confidential information.  In determining this distinction, the court considers two (2) competing public policy interests:

  • that employees should not be restricted in using skill, experience and know-how acquired in the service of their former employer in legitimate competition; in contrast to
  • the need for the law to protect the confidentiality and misuse of trade secrets.[3]

In Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd, Kirby P approved the following classification for information obtained from being employed:

  • information that because of its triviality or public availability cannot be regarded as confidential;
  • information the employee must treat as confidential until the termination of their employment, but which once learned, remains in the employee’s head and becomes part of their skill and knowledge (Know How); and
  • specific trade secrets which cannot lawfully be used other than for the employer’s benefit (Trade Secrets).[4]

If analysed this way, information can be protected in the second and third categories, although in the second, it can only be protected during the course of employment.

See our article entitled “What is a trade secret” for further discussion.

Can an employer take action if an employee misuses their know-how?

This will of course depend on the point in time when this occurs and whether or not the particular information concerned is capable of being protected as confidential information.

A claim could potentially be available at common law for breach of confidence.  However, before the Court can intervene, an employer will need to show they took reasonable steps to identify and subsequently keep the information contained or confidential.

Takeaways

Businesses that are concerned about protecting their confidential information need to clearly identify the different classes of knowledge which can be protected and take positive steps to protect it.   Broad contractual terms to the effect that ‘everything is confidential’ are unlikely to be enforceable.

Links and further references

Cases

Ansell Rubber Co Pty Ltd  v  Allied Rubber Industries Pty Ltd  [1967] VicRp 7

Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117

Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688

Mense  and Ampere Electric Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd v  Milenkovic  [1973] VicRp 78

Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 317

Decisions on confidential information

Hill & Smith Holdings PLC v Safe Barriers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 8 (8 January 2020)

Further information about confidential information

If you need advice on protecting the confidential information and defining the boundary with know-how, contact me for an obligation free and confidential discussion:

[1] Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 317 at [97].

[2] Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117 at [128].

[3] Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688 at [714].

[4] Wright v Gasweld Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 317 at [339].


Related insights about confidential information

  • What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?

    What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?

    The case of Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No 4) [2019] FCCA 3206 (Lamont v Malishus) involved an action for infringement of a registered trade mark in Australia under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA).  This case raised several issues, including, whether using a word as part of a domain name constituted “use” as…

    Read more …

  • Clash of jurisdictions and trade mark infringement

    Clash of jurisdictions and trade mark infringement

    The case of International Hair Cosmetics Group Pty Ltd v International Hair Cosmetics Limited [2011] FCA 339 (Case) considered whether use of Australian registered trade marks on a British website constituted “use in Australia” under section 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA).  It was ultimately held that, despite use of the two…

    Read more …

  • Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles.  The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …

    Read more …

  • White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed.  Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…

    Read more …

  • White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within.  White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt.  White Anting  has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…

    Read more …

  • Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    Designer wins High Court case over Katy Perry trade mark dispute

    On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor. In a 3:2 majority decision,…

    Read more …

  • Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info

    Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info

    On 10 May 2023, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) delivered its judgment in the case of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67 (New Aim v Leung), allowing an appeal concerning alleged misuse of confidential supplier information by a former senior employee. The decision provides guidance on:…

    Read more …

  • Importance of meta data in discovery – Hamlan v Levonix

    Importance of meta data in discovery – Hamlan v Levonix

    The recent copyright case of Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd trading as Hamlan Homes and Geelong Homes v Levonix Homes Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2G 565 (Hamlan v Levonix)involved a dispute between Hamlan Homes Pty Ltd 006 313 015 (Hamlan) and Levonix Homes Pty Ltd ACN 168 777 384 (Levonix) that provides insight into preservation…

    Read more …

  • Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI

    Federal Gov rules out copyright text and data mining exception for AI

    On 26 October 2025, the Attorney-General, Hon Michelle Rowland MP, published a media release reiterating that the current Federal Government will not introduce a text and data mining (TDM) exception to copyright infringement in the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act).  The Attorney-General’s Department will instead engage in further consultations with members of the Copyright…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend