Thales Australia Limited v Madritsch KG & Anor

[2022] QCA 205

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Intellectual Property
2. › Confidential Information
3. › Breach of Confidence
4. › Misuse of Confidential Information
5. › Circumstantial Evidence of Misuse
6. › Springboard Doctrine
7. › Whether inference of misuse properly drawn from circumstantial evidence
1. Intellectual Property
2. › Confidential Information
3. › Obligation of Confidentiality
4. › Whether Confidentiality Lost by Limited Disclosure
5. › Disclosure to Government Entity for Testing Purposes
6. › Reasonable Man Test
7. › [name withheld] v [name withheld] (Engineers) Ltd
1. Intellectual Property
2. › Confidential Information
3. › Identification of Confidential Information
4. › Whether Information Identified with Sufficient Specificity
5. › Parties in Closely Substitutable Fields of Common Endeavour
1. Trade and Commerce
2. › Competition, Fair Trading and Consumer Protection Legislation
3. › Consumer Protection
4. › Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
5. › Whether Conduct Likely to Mislead or Deceive
6. › Loss of Opportunity
7. › Split Trial on Liability and Damages
8. › Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), sch 2, s 18

Quick Take

The case provides a detailed taxonomy of the types of circumstantial evidence from which misuse of confidential information may be inferred, including identity of characteristics, temporal proximity, speed of development, and absence of logical explanation. Disclosure of confidential information to a government entity for limited testing purposes does not destroy confidentiality where the recipient would reasonably have understood the information was provided in confidence. In split trials involving s 18 ACL claims, issues of reliance and causation may not be cleanly separable from liability, and the court should be cautious about the scope of orders splitting the trial.