Earl of Crawford v. Paton [1911] ScotLR 870 (16 June 1911)

Earl of Crawford v. Paton [1911] ScotLR 870 (16 June 1911)

The shorthand notes made by the defender in the course of searching public records were not the property of the pursuer, as the contract only required delivery of abstracts, which was fulfilled. There was no express or implied term requiring delivery of the notes, and no custom to that effect. Interdict was refused as there was no averment or proof of actual or apprehended injury, and confidentiality did not attach to information from public records.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 870
Parties
Pursuer: Earl of Crawford; Defender: Rev. Henry Paton
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 June 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment for defender
Legal Topics
Ownership of Work Product, Employment Contract, Confidentiality, Public Records, Interdict (injunction)
Property Law Contract Law Ownership of Work Product Employment Contract Confidentiality Public Records Interdict (injunction)

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Earl of Crawford

Pursuer

Rev. Henry Paton

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether shorthand notes made by a searcher of public records under contract belong to the employer or the searcher.
  2. 2 Whether the employer is entitled to interdict (injunction) restraining the searcher from communicating information collected under the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The shorthand notes made by the defender in the course of searching public records were not the property of the pursuer, as the contract only required delivery of abstracts, which was fulfilled. There was no express or implied term requiring delivery of the notes, and no custom to that effect. Interdict was refused as there was no averment or proof of actual or apprehended injury, and confidentiality did not attach to information from public records.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for defender

Orders

  • Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor; defender assoilzied (absolved) with expenses.