Stevenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd v Macdonald & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101
The Court of Appeal distinguished work produced in the course of employment from material an author produced outside that employment. The employer did not own the copyright in the whole book merely because the author had worked for it. The publishers’ appeal succeeded in part, although material belonging to the employer remained protected.
The book and the employer’s claims
D F Evans-Hemming worked for Stevenson Jordan & Harrison as a management engineer. His professional work involved examining clients’ businesses and advising on their organisation, records and efficiency. He later became a senior executive officer of the company.
He wrote Flexible Budgetary Control and Standard Costs, subtitled Cost Control for Management, and assigned the copyright to publishers Macdonald & Evans in October 1949. His association with the company had ended that July. The book drew on public lectures and other material connected with his professional work.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
The company claimed that it owned the copyright because the work had been made in the course of his employment. Separately, it alleged that publication would disclose confidential business information. The trial judge accepted both claims and restrained publication of the whole book. The publishers appealed.
The copyright question
Section 5(1) of the Copyright Act 1911 began with the author as first owner. Under section 5(1)(b), the employer instead owned copyright where the author worked under a contract of service or apprenticeship and made the work in the course of that employment, unless there was an agreement to the contrary.
Employment alone therefore did not answer the question. The court also had to consider whether the particular material had been produced within the employment. The distinction mattered because the book contained material arising from different activities.
Denning LJ’s distinction
Denning LJ discussed the difference between a contract of service and a contract for services. His explanation went beyond simply asking whether the employer controlled how the work was done. He identified integration as a distinguishing feature: work under a contract of service formed an integral part of the business, whereas work under a contract for services could be done for the business without being integrated into it.
That discussion addressed the author’s different activities. It did not mean that everything a professional learned while working for a firm automatically became the firm’s copyright.
Outcome
The lecture material produced outside the scope of Evans-Hemming’s employment belonged to him and could be assigned to the publishers. Other material created as part of his employment belonged to the company and could not be published without its authority. The restriction was therefore confined to the protected material, rather than the whole book. The separate claim of breach of confidence was not supported by the evidence.
Sources: Case report (vLex); Case report (Swarb). Reported also at (1952) 69 RPC 10.
