193:
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
215:
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.
157:
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
194:
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.
340:
186:
320:
159:
255:
182:
99:
170:
330:
52:
Attorney
General v Observer Ltd; Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd (No.2); Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.2)
178:
174:
315:
310:
114:
128:
148:
143:
published articles on proceedings in the
Australian courts by the UK government to stop the publication. The
17:
335:
325:
95:
203:
was already interestingly published worldwide, the injunctions were not necessary. The articles in the
87:
227:
principle that " everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law".
197:
The
Attorney General had to show that disclosure was contrary to the public interest. Because
144:
83:
151:
restraining publication of information obtained by Wright in June 1986. In July 1987 the
304:
91:
153:
139:
133:
295:
243:
69:
211:
contained no damaging information, meaning no breach of confidentiality. But the
224:
199:
123:
220:
158:
dismissed the
Attorney General's appeal, and he appealed again to the
27:
UK House of Lords decision on breach of confidentiality in tort law
118:
103:
189:
upheld the
Attorney General's appeal, finding that the
65:
57:
47:
39:
34:
127:, describing his work. This was in breach of the
90:. It also raised questions of the interests of
8:
131:. It was published in Australia and the US.
31:
18:Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd
121:. After retiring he wrote a book called
236:
341:United Kingdom constitutional case law
106:'s publication of secret information.
296:Full text of the judgment from Bailii
7:
100:European Convention on Human Rights
25:
256:"Attorney-General v Observer Ltd"
321:1988 in United Kingdom case law
219:In the course of the decision,
79:Attorney General v Observer Ltd
35:Attorney General v Observer Ltd
1:
187:Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
147:then sought and received an
263:Undercover Policing Inquiry
357:
129:Official Secrets Act 1911
88:breach of confidentiality
70:Full text of the judgment
331:English privacy case law
149:interlocutory injunction
102:, because it involved a
183:Lord Goff of Chieveley
316:English tort case law
96:freedom of expression
311:House of Lords cases
171:Lord Keith of Kinkel
75:
74:
16:(Redirected from
348:
283:
280:
274:
273:
271:
269:
260:
252:
246:
241:
145:Attorney General
84:English tort law
32:
21:
356:
355:
351:
350:
349:
347:
346:
345:
301:
300:
292:
287:
286:
281:
277:
267:
265:
258:
254:
253:
249:
242:
238:
233:
168:
112:
61:13 October 1988
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
354:
352:
344:
343:
338:
333:
328:
323:
318:
313:
303:
302:
299:
298:
291:
290:External links
288:
285:
284:
275:
247:
235:
234:
232:
229:
179:Lord Griffiths
175:Lord Brightman
167:
164:
160:House of Lords
111:
108:
73:
72:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
43:House of Lords
41:
37:
36:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
353:
342:
339:
337:
334:
332:
329:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
312:
309:
308:
306:
297:
294:
293:
289:
279:
276:
264:
257:
251:
248:
245:
240:
237:
230:
228:
226:
222:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
201:
195:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
165:
163:
161:
156:
155:
150:
146:
142:
141:
136:
135:
130:
126:
125:
120:
116:
109:
107:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:public policy
89:
85:
81:
80:
71:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
30:
19:
336:The Observer
326:The Guardian
282:p. 283G
278:
266:. Retrieved
262:
250:
239:
218:
213:Sunday Times
212:
208:
204:
198:
196:
191:Sunday Times
190:
169:
154:Sunday Times
152:
140:The Guardian
138:
134:The Observer
132:
122:
115:Peter Wright
113:
98:, under the
78:
77:
76:
51:
29:
223:stated the
117:worked for
305:Categories
268:20 January
231:References
225:common law
200:Spycatcher
124:Spycatcher
66:Transcript
221:Lord Goff
244:1 AC 109
209:Guardian
205:Observer
166:Judgment
86:case on
58:Decided
82:is an
259:(PDF)
110:Facts
40:Court
270:2024
207:and
185:and
137:and
94:and
119:MI5
104:spy
307::
261:.
181:,
177:,
173:,
162:.
272:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.