Ladbroke v William Hill [1964] 1 All ER 465

• Claimant, William Hill, claimed copyright in their football betting coupons; alleged Defendant, Ladbroke, had infringed this.

• Question was whether coupons were an ‘original literary work’.

• Defendant argued there was no copyright in the coupons, on basis that there was distinction between:

  1. Preliminary work

     • I.e. deciding what to sell

     • In this case, making a decision of which bets to include

  2. Recording this work

     • I.e. deciding how to sell it

     • In this case,putting those bets on paper.

• Defendant claimed only second stage was relevant for purposes of copyright; and that so little skill was involved in recording result of the preliminary work onto paper that no copyright could subsist in it.

• Held:

Originality

• “Originality” relates to the expression of a thought.

• To be original, no requirement for original or inventive form.

  • Must simply be case that work has originated from the author.

• With regards compilations, originality is a matter of degree depending on amount of skill, judgment or labour involved in making compilation.

Constituent Parts

• Value of work as a whole is relevant when considering originality.

• Thus not possible to split constituent parts of work of making coupons.

  • No need that preliminary work done should have as sole or even main object the preparation of a document.

  • Suffices that it is an object.

• Case might be different if preliminary work was done with no intention of later writing this down.

RELATED CASES

• Interlego AG v Tyco industries Inc.

• IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd