Breach Of Confidence Claims Uk Vs Us.
BREACH OF CONFIDENCE CLAIMS: UK 🇬🇧 vs US 🇺🇸
I. OVERVIEW
| Aspect | UK | US |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Law | Common law (Equity), Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8), plus statutory frameworks like Data Protection Act | State common law (misappropriation, trade secret), Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA, 2016) |
| Scope | Confidential information (commercial, personal, technical), even without contract | Trade secrets, proprietary information, sometimes fiduciary duties or contractual obligations |
| Standard of Breach | Information must be confidential, imparted in circumstances giving rise to obligation, misused to detriment | Information must have independent economic value, reasonable measures of secrecy, misappropriated |
| Core Remedies | Injunctions, account of profits, damages, delivery up/destruction, declaratory relief | Injunctions, damages (actual & exemplary), punitive damages, disgorgement of profits |
II. UK BREACH OF CONFIDENCE
A. Elements of a Claim
Information must have the necessary quality of confidence
Information imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence
Unauthorized use causing detriment
B. Available Remedies
Injunctions (often primary)
Damages (compensatory, sometimes exemplary)
Account of profits
Delivery up/destruction of materials
Declaratory relief
C. Key UK Cases (Detailed)
1. Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 415
Facts:
Coco shared confidential information about a new project with AN Clark Ltd. The company used it without permission.
Legal Principle:
Three elements of breach of confidence established:
Information must have a “necessary quality of confidence”
Information imparted in circumstances importing an obligation
Unauthorized use causing detriment
Remedies:
Injunction
Damages
Significance:
This is the foundational case for UK breach of confidence. The test from Coco is still applied.
2. Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
Facts:
Publication of excerpts from the Spycatcher memoir, which contained confidential government information.
Legal Issue:
Whether public interest could outweigh confidentiality.
Court’s Reasoning:
Recognized public interest as a defense
Balance between Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression)
Remedies:
Injunction initially, later publication allowed overseas but restricted domestically.
Significance:
Illustrates public interest defense in breach of confidence, especially with government secrets.
3. Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1986] Ch 117
Facts:
Ex-employees used confidential recipes and client lists after leaving Faccenda Chicken.
Court’s Reasoning:
Duty of confidence can survive employment, but only for truly confidential commercial information
Ordinary skill or general knowledge is not protected
Remedies:
Injunction for restricted information
No injunction for general knowledge
Significance:
Clarifies post-employment obligations in breach of confidence.
4. Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] QB 967
Facts:
Unauthorized photos of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones’ wedding were published.
Court’s Reasoning:
Private nature of event gives rise to confidence obligations
Violation of confidence actionable even against media
Remedies:
Interim injunction to prevent further publication
Damages awarded for breach
Significance:
Confirms protection for private and personal information, not just commercial data.
5. Seager v Copydex Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 923
Facts:
Seager created a product design; Copydex used it without authorization.
Court’s Reasoning:
Confidential product information can give rise to an equitable claim
Idea alone is not protected unless presented in a specific format
Remedies:
Injunction
Account of profits
Significance:
Illustrates protection for technical or commercial designs under confidence law, precursor to modern IP overlap.
6. Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
Facts:
Supermodel Naomi Campbell sued for publication of private medical information.
Court’s Reasoning:
Privacy breaches can also be breaches of confidence
Applied balancing test: confidentiality vs freedom of press
Remedies:
Injunction
Damages
Significance:
Marks evolution of breach of confidence into privacy law under UK human rights framework.
III. US BREACH OF CONFIDENCE CLAIMS
In the US, breach of confidence is usually framed under misappropriation of trade secrets, fiduciary duty, or contract-based confidentiality. Remedies differ by statute and state.
A. Core Statutes & Doctrines
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) – widely adopted
Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA, 2016) – federal remedy
Common law fiduciary obligations
Contractual NDA enforcement
B. Available Remedies
Preliminary & permanent injunctions
Compensatory damages (actual loss)
Disgorgement of profits
Exemplary/punitive damages in some cases
Seizure/destruction of materials
C. Key US Cases (Detailed)
1. PepsiCo, Inc. v Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995)
Facts:
Ex-Pepsi employee joined Quaker Oats, potentially bringing confidential strategies.
Legal Principle:
Court recognized inevitable disclosure doctrine
Injunction may prevent employee from joining competitor temporarily
Remedies:
Preliminary injunction
Protection of trade secrets
Significance:
Introduces preventive remedy for confidentiality breaches, even before actual use.
2. Kewanee Oil Co. v Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974)
Facts:
Kewanee sued Bicron for trade secret misappropriation.
Court’s Reasoning:
Trade secrets eligible for protection
Patents not required for secrecy protection
Remedies:
Injunction
Compensatory damages
Significance:
Confirms equitable relief available for confidential technical information, federal level.
3. Coca-Cola Co. v GEM (D. Del. 1986)
Facts:
Ex-employee attempted to disclose formula-related information.
Court’s Reasoning:
Non-disclosure obligations enforceable even without patent protection
Misappropriation actionable
Remedies:
Injunction
Monetary damages
Delivery up of confidential materials
Significance:
Parallels UK’s Coco v AN Clark; reinforces contractual & equitable protections.
4. Ruckelshaus v Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984)
Facts:
EPA disclosed Monsanto’s chemical formula under regulation.
Court’s Reasoning:
Information may be trade secret even if submitted to government
Government must take precautions against public disclosure
Remedies:
Injunctive relief against disclosure
Damages for misappropriation
Significance:
Shows US government-related confidential information can trigger remedies.
5. IBM v Papermaster, 2008 (Delaware Chancery Court)
Facts:
IBM sued ex-executive for taking confidential information to Apple.
Court’s Reasoning:
Recognized fiduciary duty to employer
Information included technical and strategic data
Remedies:
Temporary restraining order
Injunction preventing employment transfer temporarily
Potential damages
Significance:
Reinforces equitable preventive measures in employment context.
6. PepsiCo v Redmond “inevitable disclosure” doctrine extended
US courts often issue injunctions to prevent inevitable use of confidential information, which has no direct UK counterpart.
IV. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY: UK vs US
| Aspect | UK | US |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Common law equity | Trade secrets (UTSA, DTSA), fiduciary duties, contracts |
| Key Test | Coco v AN Clark: confidence + circumstances + misuse | Trade secret: independent economic value + secrecy + misappropriation |
| Post-Employment | Limited to actual confidential info | Inevitability doctrine allows preventive relief |
| Remedies | Injunction, damages, account of profits, delivery up | Injunction, damages, punitive, disgorgement, seizure |
| Public Interest Defense | Recognized (Spycatcher, Campbell) | Limited; mainly contractual/employee obligations |
| Punitive Damages | Rare | Possible (exemplary/punitive in some states) |
| Preventive Measures | Rarely anticipatory | Common (inevitable disclosure injunctions) |
V. CONCLUSION
UK: Focuses on equitable balance and public interest. Remedies are mainly injunctions and compensatory damages, with account of profits possible in commercial cases. Breach of confidence has evolved to include privacy protection.
US: Remedies are broader and more aggressive, especially for trade secrets. The inevitable disclosure doctrine and DTSA/UTSA statutory framework allow preventive measures and punitive damages.
Key Takeaway:
UK remedies are more conservative and discretionary, with heavy emphasis on fairness and proportionality.
US remedies are deterrent-driven and profit-oriented, especially to prevent misuse of competitive information.
RELATED Blog
comments