A case bank and outline for the doctrine of Breach of Confidence LLB - UK
1 view 0 purchase
Course
LLB University of London
Institution
LLB University Of London
A case bank, made with care and skill, to make printing easy and locating the case easy enough to, answer problem questions (Scenario based) . Was compiled during the period i was studying for my exams this year, I am convinced that someone may be able to benefit and ace their LLB degree, awarded ...
Breach Of Confidence
1. Types of Information
There can be no property rights in information (Boardman v Phipps [1967])
1) Commercial Information
2) Government Information
3) Personal Information
1.1 The Relationship between breach of confidence and human rights
Dealing with personal Naomi Campbell v when combined with the Human Rights Act 1998, the action for
information Mirror Group breach of confidence is the means to create a right of privacy,
Newspapers Ltd although in this context the proper name for the action is not
[2004] ‘breach of confidence’ but ‘misuse of personal information’
A Right of Privacy
there was no right of Kaye v Robertson find that the defendant had committed malicious falsehood and
privacy in UK law [1991] awarded damages to the claimant on that basis)
refusing to grant the Douglas v Hello! Ltd Hello! is a popular pictorial magazine which publishes articles
claimants an [2001] about the lives (and loves) of relatively famous people (TV
injunction to restrain performers, film stars, royalty and aristocrats)
publication of their t the extensive use by the claimants of confidentiality
wedding photographs undertakings from guests and staff at the wedding was enough,
when coupled with the Human Rights Act, to create a right of
privacy
Public knowledge Venables & Thompson Butler-Sloss P granted a permanent injunction against all news
being a risk to the v News Group media in the UK preventing them from disclosing the
claimant Newspapers Ltd whereabouts and new identities of the claimants − two boys who
[2001] had been convicted of murder − who, having served their prison
sentences, wished to preserve their anonymity in case of revenge
attacks.
Naomi Campbell v House of Lords held that the claimant’s privacy had been invaded
Mirror Group by detailed accounts appearing in the defendant’s newspaper of
Newspapers Ltd her attendance at a drug rehabilitation clinic in London
[2004] It had gone too far in disclosing the details
House of Lords said that the publication of photographs is a
particularly destructive form of invasion of privacy.
The press had a vital role to play as the ‘watchdog’ of democracy,
but this did not apply where photographs and articles had the
sole purpose of satisfying the public’s curiosity.
Von Hannover v Princess Caroline of Monaco and her husband pursued several
Germany (2004) actions in the German courts to restrain publication of
photographs of them.
It was said to be noteworthy that the Federal Court had upheld
an injunction which prevented the publication of two other
photographs on the basis that they were being published solely
for entertainment purposes
The ECtHR took the view that irrespective of the extent to which
the first applicant played an official role on behalf of Monaco, the
applicants who were ‘undeniably very well known’ could not be
said to be ‘ordinary private individuals’. They had to be regarded
as ‘public figures’
Federal Court had pointed out, the photographs were taken of
the applicants in the middle of a street in St Moritz and were not
so offensive in themselves so as to justify their prohibition
, The Test to Be Applied
‘misuse of personal Naomi Campbell v whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy,
information’ Test MGN per Lord Nicholls assessed objectively
Murray v Express If there is such an expectation, the court then has to balance
Newspapers [2009] Article 8 ECHR (respect for private and family life) with Article 10
Per Lord Hope (freedom of expression).
expectation of privacy
– factors
summary of the Rocknroll v News Briggs J:
principles to be Group Newspapers claimant may still succeed even though the information at issue is
applied when dealing [2013] known by a significant number of people. In this respect, the
with an action for the approach appears to go beyond that of ‘relative secrecy’ applied
misuse of personal in breach of confidence more generally
information
PJS v News Group Even though the information at issue had been very widely
Newspapers [2016] publicised, dissemination could be prevented because it would
cause further harassment and distress
Re JR38 [2015] The approach based upon ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ was
endorsed by the Supreme Court
Bull v Desporte [2019] claim for misuse of private information against a person with
whom he had had a sexual relationship and who had published
details of their private life in a book. Julian Knowles J noted that,
where a publication concerns details of an individual’s private
sex life, there is little or no public interest in publication
the truth or falsity of information at issue is irrelevant to the
question of whether information is private (the first condition
to be established) but that it may be relevant to the public
interest balancing exercise
Gulati v Mirror Group In deciding on an appropriate sum in damages
Newspaper [2016]
Approach to be ZXC v Bloomberg defendant media organisation obtained a copy of the letter of
applied when [2020] request sent by UK legal enforcement body to an official body of
considering claims for a foreign state requesting information concerning the claimant in
the tort of misuse of connection with the potential commission of a criminal
personal information offenceand published details of the criminal investigation
referring to the claimant.
held that a person who was under criminal investigation, but had
not been charged, might have a reasonable expectation of privacy
in relation to the police investigation
In balancing the Article 8 interests with the defendant’s right to
freedom of expression under Article 10, the Court noted the
strong public interest in the maintenance of confidentiality of the
letter of request between public bodies in different states.
HRH Duchess of Megan sued for both misuse of personal information and
Sussex v Associated infringement of copyright over the publication of long extracts
Newspapers Ltd from a letter that she had written to her fatherWarby J awarded
[2021] summary judgment to the claimant in both causes
misuse of personal information, he applied the two-stage test
endorsed in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] & Re S [2005]
1st Stage - Murray factors (see Murray v Express Newspapers plc
[2008], held that the claimant had had a reasonable expectation
of privacy in the letter - detailed contents of the letter were not
in the public domain
The fact that the claimant had disclosed private information in
other contexts did not materially weaken the privacy claim in
relation to the specific private information contained in the letter
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller shadeenwrites. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $15.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
