Mustad & Son v Dosen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1928 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1928] UKHL J0619-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 19 June 1928 |
[1928] UKHL J0619-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well yesterday as this day upon the Petition and Appeal of Ole Mustad, Clarin Mustad, Halfdan Mustad, Wilhelm Mustad and Christian Mustad, carrying on business as O. Mustad and Son, of Stavanger, in the Kingdom of Norway, praying That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 19th of May, 1927, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed case of S. Allcock and Company, Limited and Mathias Dosen, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 19th day of May, 1927, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House; And it is further ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael Douglas (1st Respondent) Catherine Zeta-Jones (2nd Respondent) Nothern & Shell Plc (3rd Respondent) v Hello Ltd (1st Appellant) Hola S.A. (2nd Appellant) Eduardo Sanchez Junco (3rd Appellant)
...of a confidential relationship. See for example Saltman Engineering v Campbell Engineering and O Mustad & Son v S Allcock & Co Ltd [1963] 3 All ER 416. The question raised by this appeal is the extent to which similar protection will be afforded to other types of valuable information which ......
-
Telesystem Intl Wireless Inc. v CVC/Opportunity Equity Partners LP
...(2) Harman v. Home Secy., [1983] 1 A.C. 280, applied. (3) Mustad (O.) & Son v. S. Allcock & Co. Ltd., [1964] 1 W.L.R. 109; [1963] 3 All E.R. 416, distinguished. Injunctions-prohibitory injunction-discharge-confidential docu-ments-no discharge of order restraining use of documents outside sp......
- Worldwide Rota Dies Sdn Bhd v Ronald Ong Cheow Joon
-
House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Point Blank Ltd
...1 Ch. 227. 14 A.B. Consolidates v. Europe Strength Food Co. [1978] 2 N.Z.L.R.515. 15 Mustad and Son v. Dissen [1964] 1 W.L.R. 109; [1963] 3 All E.R. 416. 16 King Features Syndicate Inc. v. O. & M. Kleeman Ltd. [1941] A.C. 417. 17 Francis Day Hunter Ltd. v. Bron [1963] Ch. 587. 18 L.B. Plast......
-
The Law Of Confidentiality
...been patented by the employer prior to the revelation by the ex-employee, for it is by then already in the public domain (Mustad v Dosen [1963] RPC 41). All that is required, however, is relative, and not absolute (as in the case of a patent specification, where novelty is required) secrecy......
-
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN SINGAPORE: A GENERAL OVERVIEW1
...judge left this question open. 173 See Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Campbell Engineering Co. Ltd. (1948) 65 R.P.C. 203 at p. 215. 174 [1963] R.P.C. 41 at p. 43. 175 See [1969] R.P.C. 41 at p. 48. The learned judge did not define the meaning of the term “trivial tittle-tattle”. Its exact ......