Canada: Who Should Win? The Chicken Or The Prince? A Lesson In Protecting Your Confidential Information

Last Updated: August 15 2012
Article by James Tumbridge

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Generics (UK) Ltd v Yeda Research & Development Co Ltd,1gives rise to important issues for in-house legal professionals to consider when they are seeking to take employment with a rival to their present employer, especially when there is ongoing or imminent litigation between the two competitors. The Court has issued guidance that clarifies whether the common law standard for employees differs when they have a legal or quasi legal position in house: Patent Attorneys are held to the same standard as solicitors, but in house lawyers may be held to a lower standard than those in private practice.

Legal Background

Confidential information handled by employees necessarily needs protection, but it becomes more difficult once employees have left their positions to protect it, if held in their personal knowledge. There are two separate approaches that courts have taken when analysing the onus of responsibility owed by a former employee to their previous employer regarding confidential information. If there are no contractual provisions restraining ex-employees on confidentiality matters, then for general employees the case of Faccenda Chicken v Fowler2provides guidance.  Following that case the only information that will be protected once the employment relationship has terminated is a trade secret, or information which is of a sufficiently high degree of confidentiality as to amount to one.  However, there is a more onerous requirement on solicitors who have previously worked for a client and subsequently represent a new client with adverse interests to the former client: In Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG3the court held that a solicitor (or their equivalent, such as accountants or patent attorneys) who are in possession of a client's confidential information owes an unqualified duty to preserve the confidentiality of information imparted during that relationship. As a result of such a duty, the solicitor must not be permitted to act against their previous client's interests unless they can establish that there is no risk of the confidential information being disclosed to third parties.

It is therefore an interesting question as to whether an in-house solicitor (or patent attorney) is subject to the general employee confidentiality requirements as laid out in Faccenda or the more onerous requirement that is equated to private practice solicitors in Prince Jefri Bolkiah. In Generics we may have the answer from the Court of Appeal 

The Facts

From 2008 to January 2011 an in-house patent attorney was employed by Yeda, responsible for oppositions in the European Patent Office.  In February 2011 the attorney was hired by Generics (trading under the name 'Mylan') as the Director of Intellectual Property, where at that time Yeda and Mylan were in litigation involving patents over a drug called Copaxone.  The attorney was not engaged in any of this litigation before leaving Yeda, and no one in her department had any involvement; however, in her new role she had direct involvement in the Copaxone litigation. After the attorney's hiring at Mylan, Yeda became aware of her involvement in the pending litigation, however Yeda did not object to that involvement until some eight months later when Mylan made a request for the release of confidential information to the attorney. An injunction was sought barring the attorney from working on any matters regarding the Copaxone litigation based on claims that she had been privy to confidential information on the case while employed with them. Evidence was provided that supported she was exposed to confidential information, albeit peripherally, through copied emails and one discussion regarding the litigation. The Patents Court granted an injunction on the grounds that Mylan could use such information to the detriment of Yeda.

The Decision

The Court of Appeal was unanimous in its decision to allow the appeal and discharge the injunction, allowing the attorney to work on the litigation. It was held that the confidential information held by the employee was at most peripheral to the Copaxone litigation and there was, moreover, no real risk of misuse of that information. It should be noted that all three of the judges agreed that a patent attorney stands in the same position as a solicitor, and that therefore, an in-house patent attorney shall be treated the same as an in-house solicitor. While the judges all came to the same result, their rationales varied.

 Jacob L. J. preferred the approach taken in Bolkiah; that once it was shown that the attorney had received confidential information, the burden of demonstrating that there is no risk of misuse lies on the attorney. He held that Floyd J. in the Patent Court was wrong in his assessment, as the information disclosed was at best peripheral to the litigation, and the fact that Yeda delayed by nearly eight months before applying for the injunction demonstrated that they did not regard this information as confidential. As a consequence, the burden on the attorney was discharged by Yeda's own conduct.

Jacob L.J. also took an expansive interpretation of Bolkiah by stating that it applies with equal force to a former in-house litigator (or patent attorney) as it does to a former independent litigator. He conducted a thorough analysis of the similarities between the two and concluded that there is no rational distinction for treating them differently, and went on to say that a 'former employer is entitled to just as much protection from his former employee litigator acting against him as if the litigator had been independently engaged. The overriding interest in the administration of justice so requires.'[4]

Etherton L.J. took a different approach preferring the rationale in Faccenda and did not agree that the principles in Bolkiah should apply to in-house solicitors. He went on to note that the approach taken by Jacob L.J. of equating in-house solicitors to that of one in private practice was too simplistic, and there was no good reason to import into the employment field and to place on the former employee the Bolkiah evidential burden of proving an absence of risk of disclosure. His decision to not import this rational was that if employers want to restrict their employee's activities they should do so through restrictive covenants so that the employee will know with certainty what they will be able to undertake for a new employer. On the facts of the case in applying Faccenda he found that the relevant information was not sufficiently secret or confidential to amount to a trade or business secret.  Etherton L.J. did note however, that a barring order may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances when an in-house solicitor is acting in a confidential role on a current contentious matter, and then takes up a position in a similar capacity for the other side in the same contentious matter.

Ward L.J. was more tentative in his analysis and was "[M]ost reluctant to adjudicate between the characteristically forceful common sense judgement of Sir Robin Jacob...and the characteristically erudite judgement of Etherton L.J.." As tentative as it may have been his judgement prefers the Faccenda approach, and did not equate in-house solicitors to the same onus as a solicitor in private practice by noting that if a solicitor, whether in-house or not, was in possession of highly confidential information about his former employer or a client of his firm, would be bound from acting against the interests of the employer/client. He noted that an injunction would be granted whether Bolkiah or Faccenda was applied, and that there are only marginal differences between the approaches. The most vital difference between the two, as he wrote, is the onus on the solicitor to prove no real risk of harm in Bolkiah. He went on to argue that the 'search for justice' should not require a former employed solicitor to have such an obligation favouring the protection of freedom of employment.


The overall effects of this decision may only be seen in later cases and industry reaction.  However, the potential ramifications of it may be wide ranging for in-house legal professionals. The most significant part of this decision is different reasoning taken by the different judges. While the majority of the Court of Appeal preferred the lower threshold set out in Faccenda for in-house solicitors post-employment, it is still important for in-house professionals who are contemplating a move to a rival company, to be aware of the potential for the approach taken by Jacob L.J. to be applied in the future.

If the approach of Jacob L.J. is followed, the higher standard in Bolkiah will be extended to in-house professionals, and as Ward L.J. notes, could "[G]enerate a modern state of commercial slavery," especially for young in-house solicitors who are keen to advance their careers by switching jobs.  It cannot be overlooked that the higher standard in Bolkiah, if broadly applied, may overly burden employees who acquire confidential information during the course of their employment, hindering them from moving to rivals.  To businesses this must be an interesting development both in protecting themselves from employees that leave, and also for those looking to higher people with 'experience.'  In specialist areas that experience may now be harder to find if you cannot higher from your rivals with ease.  This decision is a welcome that patent attorneys are considered to be the same as solicitors, but it is not clear as to whether the standard test is the one in Faccenda or not.

Ward L.J. agreed with Etherton L.J. that there is "[A] thicket of confusion" surrounding this topic and Ward L.J.  points out that if Sir Robin Jacob's reasoning is correct:

"The ramifications for the legal profession as a whole, from partners, assistants and even trainees, are important enough for us to reserve our fully considered judgements for another case and another day when full arguments will guide through the thicket.5"

This passage signifies that this issue is far from resolved.  At the very least it should be a warning shot to all parties involved in the legal profession (especially in-house) to be aware of employment issues that arise from the use of confidential information.

While it appears that the lower burden from Faccenda is the preferred reasoning, former employers may want to avoid such conflicts altogether by having greater clarity in their employment contracts. To set down the type of confidential information that is protected in the clearest form possible, and what disclosure to the former employer and competitors employee must make before and during work for any new employer, especially a competitor. Such covenants must obviously be reasonable and proportionate; but drafting detailed and sufficient covenants at the hiring stage may mitigate many unnecessary conflicts later on.

Employers who wish to hire legal professionals (in-house or not) from rival firms may be able to avoid situations like in the current case by keeping their new hires separate from any litigation involved with their previous employer through the use of information barriers.

This decision clarifies that employers wish to bar a former employee from litigating for rival companies against them, they must protest or object to such action immediately from the moment they become aware of any risk of disclosure, as delay may thwart them. As Jacob L.J. noted; "If someone is treading on your toe or about to do so you shout. If you wait for months first then complain in a desultory way, you are apt not to be believed.6"

In short professionals may to be treated differently from other employees when it comes to confidentiality but for now the test is the same for all employees, and so the Chicken won this race.


1. [2012] EWCA Civ 726.

2. [1987] Ch. 117

3. [1999] 2 A.C. 222

4. Ibid at para 36.

5. [2012] EWCA Civ 726 at para 108.

6.  Ibid at para 18.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions