Orr -Adams (t/a Applied Concrete Systems, A Partnership) v Bailey (t/a G Bailey Services) [2013] EWPCC 30 (12 June 2013)

Orr -Adams (t/a Applied Concrete Systems, A Partnership) v Bailey (t/a G Bailey Services) [2013] EWPCC 30 (12 June 2013)

The disputed cement formulations were confidential information developed by Mr Orr-Adams using skill and expertise, not in the public domain, and both parties were under mutual obligations of confidence. The Defendants continued to use the formulations after termination of the contract without authorisation or payment, breaching both confidence and contract. Copyright subsisted in the related documents, authored solely by Mr Orr-Adams, with no assignment to the Defendants, though a licence to use existed subject to payment. The Defendants' new formulations were not wholly independently created and the Defendants failed to prove otherwise.

Citation
[2013] EWPCC 30
Parties
Claimant: Francis Orr-Adams; Claimant: Elizabeth Orr-Adams; Claimant: Applied Concrete Systems Limited; Defendant: George Bailey; Defendant: G Bailey Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (patents County Court) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimants in respect of breach of confidence, breach of contract, and copyright infringement.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Copyright Infringement, Confidential Information, Implied Terms, Joint Authorship, Assignment and Licence of Copyright
Intellectual Property Contract Law Equity Breach of Confidence Copyright Infringement Confidential Information Implied Terms Joint Authorship +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Orr-Adams

Claimant

Elizabeth Orr-Adams

Claimant

Applied Concrete Systems Limited

Claimant

George Bailey

Defendant

G Bailey Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (patents County Court) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cement formulations were confidential information
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants misused confidential information after contract termination
  3. 3 Whether copyright subsisted in the related documents and who was the author

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed cement formulations were confidential information developed by Mr Orr-Adams using skill and expertise, not in the public domain, and both parties were under mutual obligations of confidence. The Defendants continued to use the formulations after termination of the contract without authorisation or payment, breaching both confidence and contract. Copyright subsisted in the related documents, authored solely by Mr Orr-Adams, with no assignment to the Defendants, though a licence to use existed subject to payment. The Defendants' new formulations were not wholly independently created and the Defendants failed to prove otherwise.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimants in respect of breach of confidence, breach of contract, and copyright infringement.

Orders

  • Declaration that the disputed formulations are confidential information of the Claimants.
  • Declaration that the Defendants breached obligations of confidence and contract by unauthorised use of the formulations after August 2010.