Campbell v Frisbee

Factual and Procedural Background

On 4 June 2000, a newspaper published an article disclosing private information about the respondent, hereafter referred to as the Defendant, relating to her personal relationships and efforts to keep these details confidential from her fiancé. The information was provided by the appellant, hereafter referred to as the Appellant, who had been employed by the Defendant under an oral weekly contract for management services. A written confidentiality agreement was entered into by the Appellant, imposing fiduciary duties and prohibiting dissemination of confidential information without express consent.

The Appellant disclosed confidential information to the newspaper, breaching the confidentiality agreement and duty of confidence owed to the Defendant. The Defendant brought an action seeking damages or an account of profits for breach of contract and confidence. The Appellant defended on grounds including alleged assault by the Defendant, which she claimed amounted to a repudiation of the contract, and alternatively contended that disclosure was justified in the public interest. The Appellant also counterclaimed for damages for the alleged assault, which the Defendant denied.

Summary judgment was granted in part to the Defendant in respect of disclosures about her relationship, but not regarding the alleged assault disclosure, which was allowed to proceed to trial due to arguable public interest. The Appellant appealed the summary judgment, which was dismissed by Lightman J. The Appellant was granted permission to bring a second appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the duty of confidence owed by the Appellant to the Defendant was discharged by the Defendant's alleged wrongful repudiation of the contract.
2. Whether disclosure of confidential information was justified on the grounds of public interest.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The alleged assault by the Defendant constituted repudiation of the contract, releasing the Appellant from confidentiality obligations.
• The Appellant had a reasonable prospect of success on the repudiation issue and summary judgment was inappropriate.
• The public interest justified disclosure of the confidential information.
• The public interest test involves fact-specific proportionality, not a strict "pressing need to know" standard.
• The Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice should be considered relevant to assessing the legitimacy of disclosure by a media source.
• The Defendant had fostered a false public image, and the disclosure corrected this, serving the public interest.

Defendant's Arguments

• The obligation of confidence was not discharged by any alleged repudiation.
• Confidentiality obligations survive wrongful repudiation, especially in contracts for services rather than contracts of service.
• The public interest did not justify the disclosure of the confidential information.
• The Press Complaints Commission Code was not relevant to the Appellant's obligations.
• The Appellant's claim of public interest was insufficient to override contractual and privacy rights.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed two key legal questions: the effect of repudiation on confidentiality obligations and the public interest justification for disclosure.

On repudiation, the court reviewed established contract law principles, distinguishing between contracts of service and contracts for services. It held that confidentiality obligations survive repudiation in contracts for services, relying on analogous principles from marital confidentiality and professional relationships. The court found that the law on whether contractual confidentiality obligations are discharged by repudiation is not conclusively settled and that the issue was not suitable for summary judgment.

Regarding public interest, the court recognised that confidentiality rights are not absolute and must be balanced against freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998. The court noted that the public interest defence requires more than mere public curiosity; there must be a pressing need to know. It acknowledged the Appellant’s argument that correcting a false public image is a legitimate public interest but observed that the trial judge had found no real prospect of justifying the disclosure on public interest grounds. The court concluded that the public interest issue was fact-specific and not appropriate for summary determination.

The court also considered whether the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice was relevant to the Appellant's obligations, finding it was not, but accepted the Appellant had an arguable point on this matter.

Overall, the court found that the issues raised were complex and not clearly settled in law, warranting a trial rather than summary judgment.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL against the summary judgment previously granted to the Defendant.

As a consequence, the summary judgment is set aside, and the issues concerning the effect of repudiation on confidentiality obligations and the public interest defence must be determined at trial. The decision does not establish new precedent but recognises the evolving nature of confidentiality law in light of competing Convention rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The court expressed reluctance due to the disproportionate costs likely to be incurred relative to the potential damages or account of profits at stake, but emphasized the need for a full trial to resolve the complex issues.