182:
publication was in breach of its duty of confidence. That could arise both in contract and equity. A duty of confidence precludes disclosure to others, and a third party (like a newspaper) with confidential information is similarly bound by a duty if they know it is confidential. This was true unless
204:
was in breach of its duty of confidence. It was not protected by a defence of prior publication, and the fact that the story was to be published imminently in the US made no difference. It was therefore liable for the profits it made. However no further injunctions were to be granted on this matter.
146:
published extracts from the book two days before its publication in the US. The
Attorney General sought and was given injunctions to restrain further publication. But Scott J discharged them, holding the paper was liable to account for profits resulting from the publication. The Court of Appeal
183:
the confidential information was already known to the general public, or the duty to keep the information secret was outweighed by a countervailing public interest in the information.
329:
175:
309:
148:
244:
171:
88:
159:
319:
41:
Attorney
General v Observer Ltd; Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd (No.2); Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.2)
167:
163:
304:
299:
103:
117:
137:
132:
published articles on proceedings in the
Australian courts by the UK government to stop the publication. The
324:
314:
84:
192:
was already interestingly published worldwide, the injunctions were not necessary. The articles in the
76:
216:
principle that " everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law".
186:
The
Attorney General had to show that disclosure was contrary to the public interest. Because
133:
72:
140:
restraining publication of information obtained by Wright in June 1986. In July 1987 the
293:
80:
142:
128:
122:
284:
232:
58:
200:
contained no damaging information, meaning no breach of confidentiality. But the
213:
188:
112:
209:
147:
dismissed the
Attorney General's appeal, and he appealed again to the
16:
UK House of Lords decision on breach of confidentiality in tort law
107:
92:
178:
upheld the
Attorney General's appeal, finding that the
54:
46:
36:
28:
23:
116:, describing his work. This was in breach of the
79:. It also raised questions of the interests of
8:
120:. It was published in Australia and the US.
20:
110:. After retiring he wrote a book called
225:
330:United Kingdom constitutional case law
95:'s publication of secret information.
285:Full text of the judgment from Bailii
7:
89:European Convention on Human Rights
14:
245:"Attorney-General v Observer Ltd"
310:1988 in United Kingdom case law
208:In the course of the decision,
68:Attorney General v Observer Ltd
24:Attorney General v Observer Ltd
1:
176:Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
136:then sought and received an
252:Undercover Policing Inquiry
346:
118:Official Secrets Act 1911
77:breach of confidentiality
59:Full text of the judgment
320:English privacy case law
138:interlocutory injunction
91:, because it involved a
172:Lord Goff of Chieveley
305:English tort case law
85:freedom of expression
300:House of Lords cases
160:Lord Keith of Kinkel
64:
63:
337:
272:
269:
263:
262:
260:
258:
249:
241:
235:
230:
134:Attorney General
73:English tort law
21:
345:
344:
340:
339:
338:
336:
335:
334:
290:
289:
281:
276:
275:
270:
266:
256:
254:
247:
243:
242:
238:
231:
227:
222:
157:
101:
50:13 October 1988
17:
12:
11:
5:
343:
341:
333:
332:
327:
322:
317:
312:
307:
302:
292:
291:
288:
287:
280:
279:External links
277:
274:
273:
264:
236:
224:
223:
221:
218:
168:Lord Griffiths
164:Lord Brightman
156:
153:
149:House of Lords
100:
97:
62:
61:
56:
52:
51:
48:
44:
43:
38:
37:Full case name
34:
33:
32:House of Lords
30:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
342:
331:
328:
326:
323:
321:
318:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
298:
297:
295:
286:
283:
282:
278:
268:
265:
253:
246:
240:
237:
234:
229:
226:
219:
217:
215:
211:
206:
203:
199:
195:
191:
190:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
154:
152:
150:
145:
144:
139:
135:
131:
130:
125:
124:
119:
115:
114:
109:
105:
98:
96:
94:
90:
86:
82:
81:public policy
78:
74:
70:
69:
60:
57:
53:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
31:
27:
22:
19:
325:The Observer
315:The Guardian
271:p. 283G
267:
255:. Retrieved
251:
239:
228:
207:
202:Sunday Times
201:
197:
193:
187:
185:
180:Sunday Times
179:
158:
143:Sunday Times
141:
129:The Guardian
127:
123:The Observer
121:
111:
104:Peter Wright
102:
87:, under the
67:
66:
65:
40:
18:
212:stated the
106:worked for
294:Categories
257:20 January
220:References
214:common law
189:Spycatcher
113:Spycatcher
55:Transcript
210:Lord Goff
233:1 AC 109
198:Guardian
194:Observer
155:Judgment
75:case on
47:Decided
71:is an
248:(PDF)
99:Facts
29:Court
259:2024
196:and
174:and
126:and
83:and
108:MI5
93:spy
296::
250:.
170:,
166:,
162:,
151:.
261:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.