The claimant had for many years kept private journals, whose contents were circulated within a small circle of friends. He now sought to claim confidentiality and copyright in them when the defendant sought to publish them.
Held: There was an arguable case that confidence existed in some part of the journals. The order for restraint againt publication was continued until a full hearing.
 EWHC 11 (Ch)
Civil Procedure Rules 31.22
England and Wales
Cited – Home Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
Cited – Lilly Icos Ltd v Pfizer Ltd (No 2) CA 23-Jan-2002
The respondent sought an order to maintain the confidentiality of documents disclosed during patent revocation proceedings. It now appealed an order refusing confidentiality.
Held: Under normal circumstances, a party requesting such an order . .
Cited – Bonzel v Intervention Ltd 1991
‘the duty placed upon the patentee to make full disclosure of all relevant documents (which is required in amendment proceedings) is one which should not be fettered by any action of the courts. Reluctance of this court to go into camera to hear . .
See Also – HRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd. ChD 17-Mar-2006
Application for summary judgment. . .
See Also – Associated Newspapers Ltd v Prince of Wales CA 21-Dec-2006
The defendant newspaper appealed summary judgment against it for breach of confidence and copyright inringement having published the claimant’s journals which he said were private.
Held: The judge had given insufficient weight to the fact that . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 January 2021; Ref: scu.237597