Imerman v Tchenguiz
A wife's brothers who secretly copied her husband's confidential documents from his computer, for use in divorce proceedings, were liable for breach of confidence.
Facts
Mr Imerman and his wife were in the process of divorcing. Mr Imerman shared an office with his wife's brothers, who were concerned that he would hide his assets. They secretly accessed his computer and copied large quantities of his private documents, which they gave to the wife's solicitors for use in the divorce proceedings. Mr Imerman sued for breach of confidence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the brothers were liable for breach of confidence, and that Mr Imerman was entitled to the return of the documents. Lord Neuberger MR said that it would be a breach of confidence for a defendant, without the authority of the claimant, to examine, or make, retain, or supply copies to a third party of, a document whose contents are, and were or ought to have been appreciated by the defendant to be, confidential to the claimant. It did not matter that the documents were to be used in divorce proceedings. The court rejected the practice of allowing such self help in family cases.
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
- Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41
- 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
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.
