Saltman Engineering Co Ltd v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd
Technical drawings given to a contractor for a limited purpose were confidential, even though they were of tools that could be copied by anyone who took the trouble.
Facts
Saltman Engineering owned drawings of tools for making leather punches. It gave the drawings to Campbell Engineering, so that Campbell could make the tools for it. Campbell used the drawings to make tools for itself, and sold the leather punches made with them. Saltman sued for breach of confidence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Campbell was liable for breach of confidence. Lord Greene MR said that the information, to be confidential, must have the necessary quality of confidence about it, namely, it must not be something which is public property and public knowledge. But it is perfectly possible to have a confidential document, be it a formula, a plan, a sketch, or something of that kind, which is the result of work done by the maker on materials which may be available for the use of anybody, but what makes it confidential is the fact that the maker of the document has used his brain and thus produced a result which can only be produced by somebody who goes through the same process. Campbell had used the drawings for a purpose other than that for which they were given.
Related cases on breach of confidence and trade secrets
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117
- Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd [2013] EWCA Civ 780, [2013] RPC 36
- Fraser v Thames Television Ltd [1984] QB 44
- HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1776, [2008] Ch 57
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
