header-logo header-logo

09 November 2012
Issue: 7537 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Disclosure

Fairstar Heavy Transport NV v Adkins and another [2012] EWHC 2952 (TCC), [2012] All ER (D) 11 (Nov)

The preponderance of authority pointed strongly against there being any proprietary right in the content of information and that had to apply to the content of an e-mail. There was no practical basis for holding that there would be property in the content of an e-mail, even if it was otherwise open to do so. To the extent that people required protection against the misuse of information contained in e-mails, satisfactory protection was provided under English law either by the equitable jurisdiction in relation to confidential information, by contract where there was one or the law of copyright where applicable. There were no compelling practical reasons that supported the existence of a proprietary right—indeed, practical considerations militated against it.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll