Sun06252017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

PRACTICE: Biting the hand that fed you

05 April 2013  

Martin Meredith reviews the implications of recent case law on in-house lawyers

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Generics (UK) Ltd v Yeda Research & Development Co Ltd [2012] serves as another reminder of the potential difficulties faced by in-house lawyers. In particular, this decision teases out the principles that apply to in-house lawyers when they litigate against a former employer. While all three judges (Lord Justices Ward and Etherton together with Sir Robin Jacob) arrived at the same conclusion when allowing the appeal, the divergent reasoning leaves unresolved questions.

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs & Excise Commissioners (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 102

    Attorney General (NT) v Kearney [1985] HCA 60

    Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222

    Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117

    Generics (UK) Ltd v Yeda Research & Development Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 3200 (Pat)

    Generics (UK) Ltd v Yeda Research & Development Co Ltd & anor [2012] EWCA Civ 726

    Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard & ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1735

    Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) HCA 64

    Nottingham University v Fishel & anor [2000] EWHC 221 (QB)

    PCCW-HKT Telephone Ltd v Aitken [2009] 2 HKLRD 274

    Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd (in liq) (2001) HCA 31

    Telstra Corporation Ltd v Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (No 2) [2007] FCA 1445

    Waterford v Commonwealth [1987] HCA 25