header-logo header-logo

21 January 2016
Issue: 7683 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Protecting trade secrets

Employment lawyer raises questions over new EU legislation

New EU legislation to protect trade secrets has some “unclear” provisions that may require clarification by a judge and is not consistent in some areas with current UK law, an employment lawyer has warned.

Under the Trade Secrets Directive, a “trade secret” is defined as a secret that has commercial value and has been subject to reasonable steps to keep it secret by the person in control of the information. The Directive aims to counter the problem of trade secret theft and to harmonise the definition of “trade secret” to provide clear EU-wide protection. Currently, the law across member states is fragmented.

The Directive is due to be finally approved and adopted by March 2016. Member states then have two years to implement its provisions.

Christine Young, employment partner at Herbert Smith Freehills, says: “Companies operating across the EU will welcome a more unified approach.

“However, there are some downsides to the Directive. Some of the provisions are unclear and may require clarification as to their scope by the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). There are also some areas where the Directive is not consistent with the current UK position on trade secrets.

“A hurdle for companies in the UK using the Directive is that they will need to show they have taken reasonable steps to keep the trade secret confidential. That is likely to require adequate contractual and physical protections to be put in place. This is a shift in emphasis from the UK common law approach.

“The carve-outs for whistle-blowers are also wider than the current UK legislation and the test for seeking injunctive relief is more involved than the current test.”

 
Issue: 7683 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll