22 been employed as Harvey Tiling's works manager, but left its service and became a 33 director of Rodomac. 3% shareholder and managing The plaintiff's case as alleged in the summons was that Rodomac was manufacturing tiles according to a process that was the same as Harvey Tiling's process, and that the two defendants had always used and were using Harvey Tiling's know-how which they had wrong¬ fully misappropriated. It was in these circumstances that counsel on both sides were agreed that the legal principles which were applicable were those stated in the English cases. (See p. 321 G ) . MULLINS J stated the following as a test of confidentiality: "Information reasonably useful to a competitor.....