SEP 08
'87 14:42 HERBERT SMITH HK
-
22
published information at one remove On my reading of his
speech, I am far from sure that Lord Oliver would have decided what he called a "uniquely difficult" case the same way had The Sunday Times been the only defendant (19).
A claim in breach of confidence turns upon the content of the confidence and whether there is anything left to protect. A claim in breach of fiduciary duty turns on conscience, and whether it is unconscionable for the Defendant to be allowed to use information obtained from a particular source with the knowledge that such information has been revealed to him in breach of duty. The fact that such information may be gleaned from other public sourceS may be no answer to the recipient
cipient. The fact that he is free to use those sources does not leave him free to exploit his tainted source, Schering Chemicals Limited v. Falkman Limited (20).
The evidence does not start to reveal the true relationship between Mr. Wright, his publishers in the United States and in Australia, and Maws Limited, the company "through" which the Defendants have purchased their. rights. But it is sufficiently plain that there is now a direct link between Mr. Wright and the Defendants. The. Defendants are aiding and abetting Wright's breach of duty. They do not deny knowledge of such breach, but rather seek to excuse it by reference to the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor in England (which they cannot, I believe, have read). It is true that they were not party to the original publication in the United States. But here in Hong Kong they are the prime movers seeking to bring about maximum publicity to what every English judge has called.. Wright' "flagrant" breach of duty. Far from being . hopeless, the Plaintiff's case for a permanent injunction on
(19) Transcript pp.38-43
(20) [1982] 1 Q.B. 1
+
P.6
: