Terrapin Ltd v Builders Supply Co (Hayes) Ltd
A person who has received confidential information cannot use it as a springboard for activities detrimental to the confider, even after the information becomes public.
Facts
Terrapin designed prefabricated portable buildings, and gave Builders Supply detailed information about the design, so that Builders Supply could manufacture them for Terrapin. After the relationship ended, Builders Supply began to make its own similar buildings, using the information it had received from Terrapin, although Terrapin had by then published brochures describing the buildings. Terrapin sued for breach of confidence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld an injunction. Roxburgh J, at first instance, had said that a person who has obtained information in confidence is not allowed to use it as a springboard for activities detrimental to the person who made the confidential communication, and springboard it remains even when all the features have been published or can be ascertained by actual inspection by any member of the public. Builders Supply had obtained a head start by using the confidential information, which it would not have had if it had had to work out the information from the published material. This is known as the springboard doctrine.
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.
