Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd
A claim for breach of confidence requires information with the necessary quality of confidence, imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and unauthorised use of it to the detriment of the confider.
Facts
Mr Coco designed a moped engine, and had discussions with Clark, an engineering company, about manufacturing it together, during which he gave them details of the design. The discussions broke down, and Clark then produced its own moped engine, which Mr Coco claimed was based on the information he had given. He sought an interim injunction for breach of confidence.
Legal principle
Megarry J refused the injunction, because Mr Coco had not shown that Clark had used confidential information. He set out three elements of a claim for breach of confidence: first, the information itself must have the necessary quality of confidence about it; second, that information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; and third, there must be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it. He said that, where information is given in a business context for a limited purpose, the recipient is likely to be bound by an obligation of confidence. These elements remain the basis of the action for breach of confidence.
Related cases on breach of confidence and trade secrets
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117
- Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd [2013] EWCA Civ 780, [2013] RPC 36
- Fraser v Thames Television Ltd [1984] QB 44
- HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1776, [2008] Ch 57
- Imerman v Tchenguiz [2010] EWCA Civ 908, [2011] Fam 116
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
