“Court defines post-employment confidentiality duties for trade secrets and business information”
Fowler was a sales manager for Faccenda Chicken who left to set up a competing business, taking with him detailed knowledge of customer lists, prices, and delivery routes. Faccenda Chicken sought to restrain him from using this confidential information in competition with them.
Whether an employee owes a continuing duty of confidentiality after employment ends regarding information acquired during employment, and what information qualifies for protection as trade secrets.
The Court of Appeal held that while employees owe duties of confidentiality during employment, post-employment restraints on confidential information are only enforceable for true trade secrets, not general business information or skills acquired through experience.
This remains the leading authority on post-employment confidentiality obligations and is fundamental to employment law, trade secrets protection, and restrictive covenant cases. It provides the essential framework courts use to balance employee mobility against legitimate business interests.
You're reading the free summary of Faccenda Chicken v Fowler. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.