Stephenson Jordon & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans (1952) 69 RPC 10

(CA).
Evershed MR: . . . divided the work with which we are concerned into five
sections. The first section consists of the text of three lectures which were given
publiclythat is before an audience which was not in any way limited by
invitation

on the part of the Plaintiffsduring the period that Mr. Evans-Hemming was in
the employment of the Plaintiffs. The second section has been called the
Manchester section, being a section which was composed, that is written in its
final form, during the period that Mr. Evans-Hemming was engaged upon his
last assignment, for the English Sewing Co., to which I have already alluded. .
. . The third section was referred to as the post-employment section, written
during the time that Mr. Evans-Hemming had ceased to be employed by the
Plaintiffs and was in fact in the service of another company at Northampton.
Then the fourth section consists of Part II of the book, a number of charts, and
the evidence seems to be that they came into existence, at any rate in their
present form, in November, 1949, again appreciably after Mr. Evans-Hemming
had severed his connection with the Plaintiff Company. Finally, there are
passages by way of introduction, and a few connecting passages, and one other
chapter, the origin of which seems to be obscure and has not been identified.
Morris LJ: ...it does not seem to me to be shown that Mr. Evans-Hemming
could have been ordered to write or to deliver these lectures and that it was part
of his duty to write or to deliver them. Under those circumstances, I have
reached the conclusion that it is not shown that the lectures were written in the
course of Mr. Evans-Hemmings employment under his contract of service.
On a consideration of all the material which is before us, I am not persuaded
that this proposed book would publish secret or confidential information. I am
in full agreement with all that my Lord has said and, apart from the Manchester
section, I do not see any reason why publication of this proposed book should
be restrained.
Missing Link Software v Magee [1989] 1 FSR 361 (ChD).
Judge Baker: The plaintiffs case rests, first of all, on circumstantial evidence,
summarised by Hoffman J. in his judgment, and, secondly, on expert evidence
in the form of Mr. Larner, who has given his opinion that the first defendant
could not have written the program in the time which he had available, that time
being from October of last year, when he was made redundant or resigned, and
May of this year when the product was being marketed.

Megnaway Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Soon Lian Hock [2009] 3 MLJ 525 (HC).
Low Hop Bing J: There is evidence that the plaintiffs managing director
carries a dual capacity. On the one hand, he is the managing director. On the
other hand, he is the designer of the anti-theft system and the artist of the
drawings of the metal components which make up the anti-theft system.

The fact that he is the managing director does not mean that he is not an
employee. The plaintiffs organisation is a typical Chinese family business. The
plaintiff has three directors; the other two being his wife and his brother. In the
whole company, the managing director ie the plaintiff is the major shareholder.
When he started the business with this idea, everything was done by him. As the
managing director, he does almost everything for the plaintiff. The plaintiff
employs and pays him a salary to create the drawing for the plaintiff.