TNAG-1694-FCO40-2344-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 36

this les

དན་ e

SEP 08 '87 14:45 HERBERT SMITH HK

-

27

discretion" unless the judge erred in law see. Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton(22

In the forefront of Mr. Ribeiro's argument on behalf of the Attorney General is his submission that Mr. Wright owes a duty of confidence and a fiduciary duty to his employer which extends to the defendants as a third

party who stand in his shoes. The defendants by virtue of

י,

Mr. Wright's breach of fiduciary duty are therefore not. entitled to derive any benefit from his misdeeds because it' is unconscionable to do so.

F1

*

ני

1

"

1

"

A|

Mr. Lester who appeared for the defendants concedes that the Attorney General has an arguable case in confidence and breach of fiduciary duty. However, he submitted that as secrecy has now gone, the Attorney General has shown that there is no practical interest left to be protected by an injunction, The argument advanced for the Attorney General is that there are still ancillary interests to be preserved which will be destroyed if publication is allowed. If an injunction is refused the Attorney Genral. may suffer irreparable damage and will, in effect, be ~deprived of his right to a permanent injunction if the

matter 'is summarily dealt with at this stage. Mr. Ribeiro relies upon Schering Chemicals Ltd. v. Falkman Ltd. (20) when an injunction was granted where information was freely available from other sources. However, the television company in that case collaborated directly with the person who was under a breach of fiduciary duty and confidence in making a film. In' 'the instant case there "is no evidence that the defendants have aided and abetted. Mr. Wright or have collaborated with him in any way. Any relationship with him is indirect.

·

\ (22) 1983 1AC 191

P.11