Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd
An employee owes a duty of fidelity to his employer, which can be broken by working in his spare time for a competitor where this may seriously harm the employer's business.
Facts
Hivac made miniature valves for hearing aids, and employed skilled manual workers who had specialised knowledge of the process. Several of these employees began to work on Sundays, their day off, for a competitor, Park Royal, doing the same work. There was no evidence that they had disclosed any confidential information. Hivac sought an injunction to restrain Park Royal from employing its workers.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal granted the injunction. Lord Greene MR said that the employees owed their employer a duty of fidelity, and that it would be a breach of that duty for them knowingly, deliberately and secretly to work in their spare time for a competitor in a way which might inflict great harm on the employer's business. The court emphasised that an employee is generally free to do what he likes in his spare time, but that the duty of fidelity may be broken where the spare time work is for a direct competitor and threatens serious damage to the employer.
Related cases on the contract of employment and implied terms
- Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17, [2015] 1 WLR 1661
- Cresswell v Board of Inland Revenue [1984] ICR 508
- Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc [2004] UKHL 35, [2005] 1 AC 503
- Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58, [2012] 2 AC 22
- Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117
- Geys v Société Générale [2012] UKSC 63, [2013] 1 AC 523
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41
- Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
