However, in the Reddy case, the employee was held to possess information that was confidential and proprietary to his ex-employer. He had attended numerous training courses, as a result of which his skills and know-how related specifically to his ex-employer’s products and systems.
Once again the court balanced the importance of ensuring that contracts are enforced when they are freely and willingly entered into against the right of every citizen freely to choose his or her trade, occupation or profession.
It weighed up the interests of the employer and the employee, after which it made a value-judgement as to whether or not the restraint was enforceable, at the end of which it was satisfied that the contract’s restraint of trade clauses did not, in contrast to the Automotive Tooling matter, preclude the employee from using his skills and abilities. Rather, the clause in question sought to restrict the employee’s choice of new employer.
The employee was thereby restrained from taking up employment with Ericsson.
The court concluded that he was indeed in possession of trade secrets and confidential information, which, if disclosed to his new employer, could be used to the disadvantage of his old employer. The mere risk of disclosure of the relevant information justified its decision to prevent the employee’s employment with Ericsson.
The employee was required to honour the agreement he had entered into freely and voluntarily with his previous employer and, accordingly, could not work for Ericsson.
Sign up with Google
