Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
5 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Who is a confident (according to Lord Goff's dicta in Spycatcher) |
a duty of confidence could arise where an obviously confidential document is waffed out of a window and into a crowded street, or when an obviously confidential document such as a private diary is dropped in a public space and then picked up by a passer by |
|
|
Kaye v Robertson |
Lawyers didn't even plead confidence. |
|
|
Her Royal Highness Princess of Wales v MGN newspapers |
Case concerned photos taken surreptitiously of Diana in the gym. Successfully claim for an injunction. Reasonable person test: it must be shown that a reasonable person who acquired the information would have realised the info was confidential. No need for a pre-existing relationship or express communication. |
|
|
Douglas v Hello |
Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones grant exclusive rights to publish their wedding pictures to OK! magazine. Hello! magazine manages to get a photograher inside the celebrations, who takes a number of poor qaulity photos which are then published. Is this a breach of confidence? Hard to fit into Coco framework. But post-spycatcher could work? Hello! must have known the info was confidential because they lost their bidding for the exclusive rights. Add in HRA requirement to protect Art 8. But what was the wrong that occurred? CA: we cannot pretend that we find it satisfactory to shoe -horn within the cause of action of breach of confidence claims for publication of unauthorised photographs of a private occasion.' |
|
|
Wainright (lacuna remaining post spycacther) |
Strip search case. C's bring claims for invasion of privacy, based on 2 types of trespass to the person. Cs success is overturned by CA so they go to HL who upholds CA decision. They had tried to argue that there was a hitherto unrecognised tort of invasion of privacy which the House ought to take the opportunity to confirm and that the action for intentional infliction of emotional distress could be extended to provide relief. HL rejected both arguments. |
