Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans
The publication of confidential information is justified in the public interest if it reveals matters that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing, not only wrongdoing.
Facts
Lion Laboratories manufactured the Intoximeter, a device used by the police to measure the alcohol in drivers' breath. Two former employees took confidential internal documents which showed that the company had doubts about the accuracy of the device. They gave the documents to a newspaper, the Daily Express, which planned to publish them. Lion Laboratories sought an injunction.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal refused the injunction. Stephenson LJ said that there is a public interest defence to a claim for breach of confidence, which is not limited to cases where the information reveals wrongdoing or iniquity on the part of the claimant. The question is whether there is a public interest in the disclosure that outweighs the public interest in the protection of confidentiality. The accuracy of the Intoximeter, which could lead to people being wrongly convicted of drink driving offences, was a matter of serious public concern, which justified publication, even though Lion Laboratories had not acted wrongfully.
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.
