X v Y
A newspaper was restrained from publishing the identities of two doctors with AIDS, obtained from leaked hospital records, because the public interest in the confidentiality of patient records outweighed the public interest in publication.
Facts
An employee of a health authority leaked to a newspaper information from hospital records identifying two doctors who were being treated for AIDS. The newspaper wished to publish an article about the doctors, identifying them, arguing that the public had a right to know that doctors with AIDS were continuing to practise. The health authority sought an injunction restraining publication.
Legal principle
Rose J granted the injunction. He said that the records of hospital patients, particularly those suffering from AIDS, should be as confidential as the courts can properly keep them, because the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of such records, so that patients would come forward for treatment without fear of disclosure, was substantial. That interest outweighed the public interest in the freedom of the press to publish the information, because there was no evidence that the doctors posed a risk to patients, and the public debate about doctors with AIDS could take place without identifying them.
Related cases on confidentiality and medical information
- ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 455 (QB)
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Hunter v Mann [1974] QB 767
- R (Axon) v Secretary of State for Health [2006] EWHC 37 (Admin), [2006] QB 539
- W v Egdell [1990] Ch 359
- Z v Finland (1998) 25 EHRR 371
Studying medical law and ethics? 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.
