Prince Albert v Strange
Equity will restrain the publication of information obtained through a breach of confidence, such as a catalogue of private etchings made by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.
Facts
Queen Victoria and Prince Albert made etchings of their family and friends for their private enjoyment, which were printed privately. A workman employed by the printer secretly made copies, which came into the hands of Mr Strange, who prepared a catalogue of the etchings for a public exhibition. Prince Albert sought an injunction to restrain the exhibition and the publication of the catalogue.
Legal principle
Lord Cottenham LC granted the injunction. He said that the injunction could be granted on the ground of the claimant's property in the etchings, but that it was also justified on the ground of breach of trust, confidence or contract, because the copies had been obtained through a breach of confidence by the printer's employee. The defendant could not use information that had been obtained in breach of confidence, even though he had not himself been a party to the breach. The case is regarded as the foundation of the modern law of 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
- 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.
