This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Intellectual Property Law Notes

Breach Of Confidence Cases

Updated Breach Of Confidence Cases Notes

Intellectual Property Law Notes

Intellectual Property Law

Approximately 1014 pages

IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB Intellectual Property law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).

These were the best IP Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highes...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Intellectual Property Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

BREACH OF CONFIDENCE - CASES

Confidential Information

Stephens v Avery [1988]

Information will not be ‘confidential’ if it is immoral

However this will be found very rarely.

On facts, fact that C was in a homosexual relationship was not immoral.

Fraser v Thames TV [1984]

C had idea for TV series concerning a female rock group. Was partly fictional and partly based on experiences of C. Idea was communicated to D (a scriptwriter), who then communicated it to D2 (a producer). D and D2’s TV company went on to produce TV show based on idea, but using different actresses to C. C sued for breach of confidence. Held:

Fact that idea was communicated orally is irrelevant to liability

i.e. information can be confidential regardless of its form.

To be confidential, idea must have some element of originality not already in public knowledge.

Must also be case that idea is clearly identifiable

i.e. as vague idea does not suffice

but also no need for idea to be fully developed

Facts

Information was confidential.

AG v Observer Ltd [1990]

Former senior MI5 agent published his memoirs in various countries outside UK. Numerous references to it were made in UK broadsheets (e.g. Sunday Times started to publish serialisation of book). Attorney-General sought injunctions against broadsheets for breach of confidence. Held:

Lord Keith

Even if information has been already published abroad, may still be secret if publishing it in UK would bring it to attention of more people in UK

Lord Goff

Information will not be confidential where:

  1. it has entered the public domain

  2. Information enters public domain where it is so generally accessible it can no longer be said to be confidential

  3. it is trivial

    On facts, information had lost quality of confidence.

De Maudsley v Palumbo [1996]

C revealed his idea for a new nightclub to D during a dinner party. Information included that night club would operate all night, have top DJs from UK and worldwide, and would be decorated in a ‘warehouse’ style. D later built Ministry of Sound nightclub, but did not include C. C sued. Held:

Is possible for simple ideas to be protected.

However nonetheless idea cannot be protected if it is not sufficiently particular and defined

Facts

Information imparted by C was too general and lacking in originality.

i.e. with exception that idea that club would be open all night, none of idea were novel

Thus was not confidential.

BBC v Harper Collins [2010]

Person who played the Stig on Top Gear wanted to publish autobiography. BBC sued publishers alleging breach of confidence. D claimed there was no breach as information had already been made public through widespread press speculation as to identity of the Stig. Held:

Identity of Stig was so generally accessible that it could no longer be regarded as confidential.

This because press coverage went well beyond mere speculation as to Stig’s identity

Rather the statements as to Stig’s identity by press would be understood by public as statements of fact

Mars v Teknowledge [2009]

C produced vending machines with coin machines in them; D dismantled coin machine and copied technology from it. C brought action for breach of confidence. Held:

Once product is on market owner is entitled to dismantle it.

Thus information in coin machine was not confidential.

Springboard Doctrine

Terrapin v Builder Supply [1967]

D made prefabricated buildings to design specified by C. C communicated manufacturing details and technical specifications to D for this purpose. At end of contract, D began to make its sell its own prefabricated buildings incorporating many of C’s design features. C sued; D claimed there was no breach as sale of C’s buildings and existence of C’s brochures meant information was available to public. Held:

Person who obtains information in confidence cannot use it as a springboard for activities detrimental to person who gave information.

Is true that inspection of brochures and dismantling of C’s buildings might enable third party to copy design

However this is far more difficult than it would be without the technical specifications

Thus C used information to give him unfair head-start over members of public

Douglas v Hello! [2008]

Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! magazine would pay 1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. At wedding itself, guests were forced to surrender any equipment which could be used to take photos. However someone surreptitiously took photos which were then published by Hello! magazine. OK! also hurriedly published its official photos on same day. OK! sued Hello! for breach of confidence. Held:

Majority (speech of Lord Hoffmann)

D had committed breach of confidence in relation to C.

Any photos of the wedding as an event taken by anyone were commercially confidential information

and not merely the photos OK! was authorised to publish

Art 8 is completely irrelevant to OK!’s claim

i.e. HRA 1998 does not apply in respect of commercially sensitive information

Did OK have standing to sue?

Is necessary to keep one’s eye firmly on the money.

Therefore OK! have right to enforce obligation of confidence

OK! paid 1 million for benefit of obligation of confidence on those at wedding

Thus obligation of confidence was imposed for benefit of both Douglas’ and OK!

No reason why OK! should not get benefit of that obligation

Loss of confidentiality?

Photos are confidential even though Douglas’ did not intend to keep them secret

if information is worth so much that OK! was willing to pay to be only source of publication, is no reason why OK! cannot protect against D’s publication

Moreover photos are still confidential despite fact that D has put images of wedding in public domain

information protected here was any photos of wedding as a visual spectacle

and not information about what happened at wedding

Lord Walker (dissenting)

Fact that stringent security procedures were in place does not in itself make...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Intellectual Property Law Notes.

More Intellectual Property Law Samples