Breach of Confidence
Show Less

Breach of Confidence

Social Origins and Modern Developments

Megan Richardson, Michael Bryan, Martin Vranken and Katy Barnett

This concise yet detailed book explores the historical foundations and modern developments of the ancient doctrine of breach of confidence. The authors show that despite its humble beginnings, stilted development and air of quaintness the doctrine has modern relevance and influence, its sense of ‘trust and confidence’ still resonating with the information society of today. Topical chapters include, ‘Inventing an equitable doctrine’, ‘Privacy and publicity in early Victorian Britain’, ‘Searching for balance in the employment relationship’, as well as many others.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 5: The Forgotten Years of Breach of Confidence

Megan Richardson, Michael Bryan, Martin Vranken and Katy Barnett


Breach of confidence was not immediately forgotten. Indeed, the Copyright Act of 1911 seemed to contemplate its continuing existence, intimating that the fact that the property right in unpublished works had been abolished did not preclude its operation. And just two years after the Act, Swinfen Eady LJ suggested the doctrine might have a broad operation in Lord Ashburton v Pape,1 consistent with the old case of Tipping v Clarke:2 [T]he principle upon which the Court of Chancery has acted for many years has been to restrain the publication of confidential information improperly or surreptitiously obtained or of information imparted in confidence which ought not to be divulged.3 Yet only four years later in the 1917 case of Sports and General Press Agency, Limited v ‘Our Dogs’ Publishing Company, Limited4 the Court of Appeal held that the organizers of a dog show who purported to assign the sole photographic rights in the show had no basis to prevent an unauthorized photographer from photographing the event and selling copies to the defendant newspaper – and therefore its approved photographer’s assignee, the Sports and General Press Agency (a news service specializing in sport-related news), could not prevent the defendant’s publication. A difficulty with the case is to know precisely the reason for that decision. It was an extempore judgment barely reported. Lush LJ felt the need to add the more general qualifying proposition that ‘if those who promote shows or exhibitions wish to prevent the taking of photographs, they must...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.