Stephens v Avery
Information about a person's sexual conduct, disclosed in confidence to a friend, can be protected by the law of confidence, even without a contract.
Facts
Mrs Stephens told her friend, Mrs Avery, in confidence, about her sexual relationship with another woman, who had later been killed by her husband. Mrs Avery passed the information to a newspaper, which published it. Mrs Stephens sued Mrs Avery and the newspaper for breach of confidence. The defendants argued that information about sexual conduct could not be protected, because it was immoral, and that there was no relationship of confidence between friends.
Legal principle
Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C held that the claim could proceed. He said that the basis of the law of confidence is that the conscience of the recipient of the information is affected by the circumstances in which it was given, and that the relationship between the parties is not determinative. A friend who receives information that is expressly given in confidence is bound by an obligation of confidence. Information about a person's sexual conduct was not so immoral as to fall outside the protection of the law, because the courts would not distinguish between different kinds of sexual conduct.
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.
