Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
Year1946
Date1946

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
79 cases
  • Sanders v Parry
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Green [1895] 2 Q.B. 315, 320; 11 T.L.R. 517, C.A. F9[1935] 2 K.B. 80, 88. F10[1893] 1 Ch. 218; 9 T.L.R. 87, C.A. F11[1946] 1 Ch. 169; 62 T.L.R. 231; [1946] 2 All E.R. F12[1946] 1 Ch. 169, 174. F13Ibid. 175. F14Ibid. 175. F15Ibid. 178. F16Ibid. 180. F17[1911] 2 K.B. 786; 27 T.L.R. 786, C.......
  • Dato' Abdullah bin Ahmad v Syarikat Permodalan Kebangsaan Bhd and Others
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1990
  • Customer Systems Plc v Ranson and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 27 June 2012
    ...case of a milkman soliciting his employer's customers while actually on his rounds. In Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd [1946] Ch 169 the obligation of fidelity was held, prima facie, to apply to workers carrying out in their own spare time skilled work for a competitor of ......
  • Argus Media Ltd v Mr Mounir Halim
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 15 January 2019
    ...case will depend on the particular circumstances of a given employment relationship: Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd [1946] Ch 169 (CA) at 174. The key question in identifying a breach is whether the steps taken impaired the employee's ability to serve his employer faithfu......
  • Get Started for Free
6 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 12: Directors' duties
    • United Kingdom
    • Taylor and Francis Bourne on Company Law
    • Invalid date
    ...not possible for senior employees to compete by holding two employments in similar lines of business. Thus, in Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd [1946] Ch 169, senior employees engaged on sensitive work in wartime were prohibited from working for competing employers. They we......
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Taylor and Francis Company Law
    • Invalid date
    ...CA 76, 82, 85 Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheepbreeders’ Association [1915] 1 Ch 881, CH 53, 54, 55, 59, 61 Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 350 HLC Environment Projects Ltd [2013] EWHC 2876 190, 199, 206 Hogg v Cramphorn [1967] Ch 254, CH 189, 199, 203, ......
  • Chapter 10: Independence and protection of auditors in the EU anti-money laundering framework
    • United Kingdom
    • Taylor and Francis The Financial Crisis and White Collar Crime - Legislative and Policy Responses
    • Invalid date
    ...legislation in the UK: are whistleblowers adequately protected? (2008) Journal of Business Ethics, 82: 497–507. 69 See: Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Ltd [1946] Ch 169 and Attorney-General v Guardian [No. 2] 1990 1 70 Heinisch v Germany (28274/08). 71 Lewis, n. 68 above. 72 Stephenson and Levi, n.......
  • Table of cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Taylor and Francis Modern Intellectual Property Law. Third Edition
    • Invalid date
    ...113 631 Hilti v Commission (1991) Case T-30/89 [1991] ECR II-1439 103 Hitachi/Auction method [2004] OJ EPO 575 … 119120125 Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd [1946] 1 Ch 169 254267 Hodgkinson & Corby v Wards Mobility Services (The Roho Case) [1995] FSR 169 Hoerrmann’s Applica......
  • Get Started for Free