Facts: The defendant, the Duke of Argyll divorced on the grounds of his wife's adultery. The wife did not contest the divorce, on the understanding that nothing more would be said about the adultery. The Duke subsequently sold stories to the newspapers giving intimate details of that and other aspects of his wife's private life.

Held: The Dukes wife was granted injunctions prohibiting publication. Ungoed-Thomas J said that these types of cases indicate:

• 1) A contract or obligation of confidence need not be expressed but can be implied
• 2) A breach of confidence or trust or faith can arise independently of any right of property or contract
• 3) The court in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction will restrain a breach of confidence independently of any right at law

Facts: A light aircraft took photographs of the plaintiff’s house. An action was brought in trespass and/or breach of privacy.

Held: The action did not succeed

Facts: Men broke into the claimant's house under the Secretary of State's instructions

Held: The court found in favour of the claimant, saying that it “would be monstrous” to allow the Secretary of State “a right to see all a man’s private letters of correspondence, family concerns, and business”

Facts: An actor, Kaye, was injured whilst driving his car. He suffered serious injury and was taken to hospital. He recovered sufficiently to be moved to a private room. At a time at which the actor was still in no fit condition to be interviewed, a journalist gained access to his room and attempted to conduct an interview. He took photos showing of Kaye, including his injuries. An interim application was made on the actor’s behalf for injunction to prevent the article being published. The injunction was initially granted, but the defendants (i.e. the newspaper) appealed

Held: Although Kaye's claim in privacy failed, he was able to get a remedy in malicious falsehood → Bingham noted that “defining and limiting a tort of privacy are formidable”

Facts: Malone was on trial on suspicion of dealing in stolen goods. It became clear that the police had intercepted Malone’s phone calls.

Held: Sir Robert McGarry ruled that no trespass was committed by the police but the interception of communication was "a subject which cries out for legislation". Although the held there is no general right to privacy in the UK, they did say there was an equitable cause of action in breach of confidence. This equitable cause of action in breach of confidence would apply if 3 conditions were met:

1. The information “must have the necessary quality of confidence about it” (Saltman Engineering v Campbell Engineering 1948)
2. “That information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence”
3. “There must have been an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it”

Facts: A photographer took studio photographs of the plaintiff (i.e. claimant), which he later offered for sale as Christmas cards. The defendant used the photo without the palintiff's consent in shop window in the form of a Christmas card.

Held: North J held the unauthorised use was a breach of confidence. There is now a statute to protect this sort of thing → See Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.85(1): A photographer commissioned to take a photograph cannot display it to the public.

Facts: This case involved the unauthorised copying of etchings made by Queen Victoria and her husband for their private amusement. The etchings, which represented Victoria and Albert’s children and other subjects of personal interest, had been kept privately by the Royal Family, although a few copies had been given to friends. The plates of the etchings were entrusted to a printer in Windsor for him to make further impressions. One of his employees made unauthorised copies which were were sold to the defendant. The defendant proposed to exhibit them and publish a catalogue with their descriptions.

Held: Prince Albert succeeded in getting an injunction to prevent both the exhibition and the publication of the catalogue. Lord Cottenham accepted that it was justified on the grounds of both the enforcement of the prince’s property rights and the employee’s breach of confidence (even though he acknowledged privacy is the right being invaded). Thus, where information or property came into another’s hands through breach of trust or confidence, then the owner of the information is entitled to an injunction to prevent the publication or use of the information.

Facts: In the 1980s, Peter Wright, a retired MI5 officer, wrote his memoirs, which detailed not only a great deal of technical information about electronic surveillance, but other information about senior intelligence officers. The UK Government attempted to suppress publication, both in Australia and in the UK.

Held: There was undoubtedly a breach of confidence, and the UK Government sought and received an injunction. However, the injunction was only enforceable within the jurisdiction of English courts.

Facts: The claimant, a mother and son, were subjected to strip searches on a prison visit to see the first claimant's son and the second claimant's half brother, O’Neill. The prison authorities suspected that O’Neill was dealing in drugs in the prison and required all visitors who wanted an open visit with him to submit to a strip search. It was subsequently found that the searches of the claimants were conducted in breach of the prison’s own rules. The claimants sought damages for the invasion of their privacy, and succeeded in the county court. The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's. appeal, so the claimants took the case to the House of Lords

Held: The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. The House of Lords, confirming Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979], held that there was no right of privacy in Common Law. For Lord Hoffman, the right of privacy was a value underlying the law but not a principle susceptible of direct application to individual claims. The case subsequently went to the European Court on Human Rights, where it was held there had been a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (a right to respect for one's "private and family life")