Hubbard v Vosper
| Hubbard v Vosper | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Full case name | Hubbard and another v Vosper and another |
| Decided | 17-19 November 1971 |
| Citation(s) | [1972] 2 Q.B. 84 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting |
Lord Denning Lord Megaw Lord Stephenson |
| Keywords | |
Hubbard v Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84, is a leading English copyright law case on the defence of fair dealing. The Church of Scientology sued a former member, Cyril Vosper, for copyright infringement due to the publication of a book, The Mind Benders, criticizing Scientology. The Church of Scientology alleged that the books contained material copied from books and documents written by L. Ron Hubbard, as well as containing confidential information pertaining to Scientology courses. Vosper successfully defended the claim under the fair dealing doctrine, with the Court of Appeal deciding unanimously in his favour. The judgment given by Lord Denning clarified the scope and content of the fair dealing defence.
On September 9, 1971, The Mind Benders, a book critical of Scientology written by Cyril Vosper, a former scientologist of 14 years, was published by Neville Spearman Ltd. The Church of Scientology obtained an interim injunction on the same day to restrain publication of the book.
The book contained many extracts from the works of L. Ron Hubbard, including books such as Axioms and Logics and Introduction to Scientology Ethics. These extracts were often accompanied by criticism and explanations in Vosper's book. Also included in the book was information obtained by Vosper through Scientology courses, which the Church of Scientology claimed was confidential by virtue of a declaration signed by Vosper not to divulge any of the information to outsiders - specifically to those who were not "Clear".
At issue was whether the extracts in The Mind Benders constituted copyright infringement, and whether the information published in the book amounted to an actionable breach of confidence.
The lower court granted the injunction to prevent publication of the book, finding that there was a strong case for infringement.
A panel of three judges in the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, and lifted the injunction against publication of the book.
...
Wikipedia