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

  • Baseless threats of trade mark infringement

    Businesses must be aware of the legal considerations when making allegations of trade mark infringement. Learn more about the Pacific Ale Case and the two possible defences, Section 129(4) and (5) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), to protect your brand and avoid potential legal ramifications.

    Read more …

  • Changes affecting unfair dismissal and minimum wage

    Changes affecting unfair dismissal and minimum wage

    Employers should be aware of three changes to employment law that came into effect on 1 July 2016, which have a significant impact on employee rights, including the unfair dismissal high income threshold, maximum compensation for claims, and minimum wage.

    Read more …

  • Enforcing confidentiality agreement terms

    Enforcing confidentiality agreement terms

    Learn how to protect confidential information and the legal remedies available if a breach occurs. Find out what elements must be established for a successful claim.

    Read more …

  • What exactly is a “Confidentiality Agreement”?

    What exactly is a “Confidentiality Agreement”?

    This article explores the importance of Confidentiality Agreements (NDAs) and what must be established in order to protect confidential information. Learn what elements and expectations are typically found in such agreements.

    Read more …

  • Meeting the evidentiary burden for a search order

    Meeting the evidentiary burden for a search order

    An Anton Piller Order is usually made without the presence of the respondent (ex parte) and consequently the Courts require the satisfaction of a high evidential threshold before granting orders of this nature.  As stated in George Rofail v Landmark Recruitment Pty Ltd and Others [2004] NSWIRComm 260 (7 September 2004), they are usually made…

    Read more …

  • Terminating a contract with no set end date

    Terminating a contract with no set end date

    In practice, we come across commercial agreements of varying types (Contracts) that, for whatever reason, don’t provide for a term or an end date (Expiry Date).   There may have been reasons for this at the time that can no longer be recalled.   It raises a number of issues, particularly where the subject matter of the…

    Read more …

  • Is your confidential information truly protected?

    Is your confidential information truly protected?

    This article examines the complex nuances around protecting confidential information, essential for commercial transactions. It looks at the quality of confidence, circumstances implying an obligation of confidence, and various Court cases to determine the confidentiality of information.

    Read more …

  • The risks of ‘manufactured’ business testimonials: lessons from the ACCC

    The risks of ‘manufactured’ business testimonials: lessons from the ACCC

    The Federal Court has imposed hefty fines and corrective measures on A Whistle and Co Pty Ltd, a franchisor found guilty of breaching the Australian Consumer Law by publishing fake customer testimonials. This serves as a warning to businesses to engage in genuine and legitimate marketing activities, not deceptive practices.

    Read more …

  • Letting go of employees threatening to go to the media

    Letting go of employees threatening to go to the media

    When employees leak confidential information or threaten to go to the media, employers can face serious consequences. Find out what the Fair Work Commission says about this issue and what options employers have to protect themselves.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend