Krueger Transport Equipment Pty Ltd v Glen Cameron Storage and Distribution Pty Ltd

A recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia involved issues of breach of confidence, copyright and equity.

COPYRIGHT

Infringement was found based on indirect access to the copyright work. The Applicant, Krueger Transport Equipment Pty Ltd (“Krueger”) claimed copyright in a sketch made during a meeting with the First Respondent, Glen Cameron Storage and Distribution Pty Ltd (“Camerons”) and a set of engineering drawings produced subsequent to the meeting and provided to Camerons (“Krueger drawings”). Based on the evidence, Gordon J found that Camerons disclosed the concept expressed in the Krueger sketch to a Fourth Respondent, Vawdrey Australia Pty Ltd (“Vawdrey”) who produced a “sales drawing” expressing the concept in a practical form, and provided it to Camerons.

The Krueger drawings were submitted in a tender document by Camerons (with the consent of Krueger) and subsequent to winning the tender, Gordon J concluded that Camerons requested Vawdrey (orally) to increase the number of posts from six (as shown on their sales drawing) to seven, and to increase the size of the gates on each post. Vawdrey then produced “engineering drawings” incorporating the change and such drawings more closely resembled the Krueger drawings.

The Court held that there was no copyright infringement of the Krueger sketch which expressed little more than a concept because the Vawdrey engineering drawings differed significantly. However the Court found that there was indirect copying of the Krueger drawings by the Vawdrey engineering drawings based on the giving of oral instructions to Vawdrey, by an intermediary, to increase the number of posts and the size of the gates: See LED Buildings Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd (1996) 35 IPR 215.

BREACH OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

It was held that the disclosure of the concept by Krueger in the meeting with Camerons had the necessary quality of confidence, there was an obligation of confidence, and the unauthorized disclosure of the concept by Camerons to Vawdrey was to the detriment of Krueger. Therefore the relevant principles given by Megarry J in Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd 1969 RPC 41 for a successful action in breach of an equitable obligation of confidence were satisfied.

The Court also held, on the basis of evidence, that there was a contractual obligation of confidence based on an oral agreement between Krueger and Camerons made at the meeting. Camerons breached that agreement.