Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

IP > 16. Breach of Confidence/Privacy > Flashcards

16. Breach of Confidence/Privacy Flashcards

1
Q

Prince Albert v Strange (1849)

A

often referred to as the origin of BOC (but there were cases involving BOC before this case)

“breach of confidence… would itself entitle the plaintiff to an injunction”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Seager v Copydex (No.1)

A

D tried to make his own carpet brick but was almost exactly the same as C’s (called it the same)

BOC
- doesn’t matter if D was innocent and just subconsciously remembered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers

A

NO tort of privacy per se but there is a tort of misuse of private information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015]

A

Two separate paths (distinct): (Lord Dyson MR)

ONE – the traditional action for breach of confidence

TWO – protection of private of personal information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Coco v Clark [1969]

A

FOR BOC, C must show

  1. confidential information
  2. D owes C obligation to keep information confidential
  3. unauthorised use
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

John Zinc v Lloyds Bank

A

C must specify exactly what information is confidential

D has a right to know exactly what needs to be defended

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Suhner v Transradio

A

C gave D 246 documents

  • said 100 was confidential
  • said 146 contained some confidential information

REFUSED to grant an injunction (very difficult to know precisely what information it is which C says is confidential)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Ocular Sciences

A

Unless confidential information is properly identified, the injunction might be of uncertain scope and difficult to enforce

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Seager v Copydex (No.1) (springboard doctrine)

A

information might be public but still can’t use confidential information used in negotiations as a springboard to get to the result

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Examples of subject matter that has been protected:

A 
carpet grip
designs of F1 cars
TV programme
genetic structure of nectarine tree
medical lectures
culture/religious secrets of aboriginal community
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

4 limits on kinds of information

A

excluded information:

  1. trivial information
  2. immoral information
  3. vague information
  4. information in public domain
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

AG v Guardian Newspapers

A

government information is NEVER trivial

courts can’t decide if it is important or trivial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Mills v News Group Newspaper

A

address of Heather Mills = not trivial information

PROTECTED

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Douglas v Hello!

A

majority: celebrity wedding photos = not trivial (“no principled reason” why it shouldn’t be protected)

minority (Walker): trivial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Mosley v NGN (immoral information)

A

Eady J: in modern society, questionable whether you can call sexual activity immoral if adults and consenting

courts hesitant to say something is immoral (no code of morality)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

De Maudsley v Palumbo

A

idea:

  1. open all night
  2. high quality sound in enclosed dance area
  3. hi tech industrial warehouse
  4. separate areas
  5. top DJs

INFORMATION TOO VAGUE (aspirational and speculative, not sufficient developed)

  • only novel thing is open all night
  • other features = common

IDEA that is ASPIRATIONAL or DESIRABLE GOAL (“would it be great if…?” will not be protected by the action)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Talbot v General Television

A

new concept for a TV show was protectable because it was ‘capable of being realised in actuality’ (NOT TOO VAGUE)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Fraser v Thames

A

WHETHER IT IS TOO VAGUE = Q OF FACT

dependent on case at hand

  • for TV show, no need for full synopsis
  • normal practice is just general proposals as protected
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Coco v Clark (info in public domain)

A

public domain = “relative secrecy”
- some people can know and it is still secret (Price Albert v Strange)

status of information = Q of fact not intention
- can intend to publish but then don’t (not in public domain)

20
Q

Douglas v Hello (info in public domain)

A

each photo was not equivalent to a verbal description of the event

each photo = separate piece of information (so disclosure of some photos does not deprive other photos of their quality of confidence)

DISSENT: nothing left confidential in photos

21
Q

BBC v HarperCollins Publishers

A

Publication does not ‘reveal’ information if it is merely speculative

  • here, newspapers were not understood as speculation but statements of fact
  • not secret
22
Q

Franchi v Franchi

A

information published in patent in Belgium

  • patent agents inspect foreign patents so information is in public domain
23
Q

AG v Guardian Newspapers (public domain?)

A

Where info widely available no need to restrain further publication regardless of how the info reached the public domain

  • if information is widely available, not confidential anymore
  • but first release can still be a wrong
24
Q

Potters Ballotini v Weston Baker

A

Can be confidential information even if it can be reversed engineered from information that is available publicly

“SPRINGBOARD DOCTRINE”

  • if one party uses information obtained in confidence
  • protection lasts for how long it would take to reverse engineer and find out information by reverse engineer
25
Q

Coco v Clark (obligation of confidence)

A

Q: would a reasonble recipient have realised the information was given to them in confidence?

OBJECTIVE TEST
NO obligation usually
- normal conversation
- blurt out in public
- informal social setting

YES obligation
- disclosure for limited purpose

26
Q

situations where obligation of confidence can arise

A
  1. contractual provisions
  2. relationship between the parties
  3. from manner of communication
27
Q

Faccenda Chicken v Fowler

A

ex-employees

trade secrets = always protected

commercially sensitive information = protected during only (after, only if there is express contractual provision)

general skill and knowledge of E = never protected

28
Q

is it a trade secret?

A

consider:
nature of employment

nature of information

did R impress on E confidentiality of information?

ease of isolation of information from other information E is free to use

29
Q

AG v Guardian Newspapers (obligation of confidence)

A

Obligation of confidence arises if the recipient knew, or ought to have known that the information was confidential

30
Q

AG v Guardian Newspapers (unauthorised use)

A

no need to show detriment to C usually for unauthorised use

BUT if government information NEED to show detriment it seems

31
Q

Lion Laboratories v Evans

A

public interest defence can be used

- can go to newspapers instead of to the police authorities behind closed doors (less effective)

32
Q

Woodward v Hutchins

A

public interest –> YES if setting the record straight

33
Q

Douglas v Hello! (in public interest defence)

A

MUST be in public interest NOT of public curiosity

interesting is not the asme as public interest

34
Q

Von Hannover v Germany

A

ONE - zone around person’s life that can be regarded as private life

TWO - photos taken in climate of continuous harassment by the process (decisive)

THREE - distinguish between (a) reporting facts contributing to debate, (b) details of private life of individual not exercising official functions

35
Q

HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers

A

diary about Chinese officials
- friend passed it onto the press

COULD USE BOC or art.8 HERE

36
Q

Campbell v MGM (MOPI)

A

misuse of private information:

  1. reasonable expectation of privacy
  2. interference with art.8
  3. interference justified by art.10?
  4. balance factors
37
Q

Murray v Express Newspapers (privacy)

A 
Is art.8 engaged?
consider:
- attributes of C 
- nature of activity engaged in
- place happened
- purpose of intrusion
- consent?
- circumstances it reached hands of published
- effect on C

art. 10?
- is publication highly offensive to objective reasonable person in shoes of C?

38
Q

Spelman v Express Newspapers

A

no expectation of privacy

  • athelete
  • 18
39
Q

Von Hannover v Germany (art.10)

A

debate of public interest = intrusion of private life might be justified

40
Q

Donald v Ntuli

A

CA adopts test: does the information contribute to a debate of general interest?

disclosure of relationship is fine
no disclosure of intimate sex detals

41
Q

Axel Springer v Germany

A

court stressed importance of FOS in democratic society

  • art.10 restrictions cannot be arbitrary or suppressed more than necessary
  • proportionality test

consider:

  • contribution to a debate of general interest
  • well known person?
  • prior conduct of person concerned
  • method of obtaining information
  • content of publication
42
Q

Von Hannover v Germany (No 2)

A

ski trip photos

  • debate of public interest
  • why is she out when she should be looking after father
43
Q

Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd (justification of infringement)

A

public interest?
- not here, it wasn’t actually a Nazi role play

criminality

  • this is desperate
  • these crimes aren’t usually prosecuted

public role/sexual morality

  • nothing can justify the scale of reporting
  • consensual sexual activity
44
Q

Mosley v UK

A

art.8 did not mandate a prepublication notice requiremnet

45
Q

K v News Group Newspapers

A

when balancing factors consider families of parties to litigation

  • courts consider K’s art.8 rights AND his child’s rights
46
Q

Re S (A Child)

A

NEITHER article has pre-eminance

weigh competing convention rights with focus on specific facts of case

here criminal proceedings –> art.10 more important

IP (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions