Betrayal of confidence in the court of appeal

Medical Law International

Volumn 4, Issue 3-4, 2000, Pages 277-311

  Beyleveld, Deryck ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CONFIDENTIALITY; DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 (GREAT BRITAIN); DRUG INDUSTRY; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RECORD; PRESCRIPTION; PRIVACY; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 (GREAT BRITAIN); LEGAL APPROACH; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP;

CONFIDENTIALITY; DATA COLLECTION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DISCLOSURE; DRUG INDUSTRY; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; MEDICAL RECORDS; PRESCRIPTIONS, DRUG; PRIVACY;

EID: 0000568987     PISSN: 09685332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/096853320000400407     Document Type: Article

References (2)

1. See Francis Gurry, Breach of Confidence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) 3-5. Briefly, to establish a cause of action the confider must prove (a) that the information imparted was confidential (usually taken to mean "not in the public domain'); (b) that the circumstances surrounding the disclosure imposed an obligation upon the confidant to respect the confidentiality of the information (usually arising where information is confided for a limited purpose); and (c) that the confidant has breached the obligation (again, usually by using the information for a purpose other than that for which it was confided).
2. See our commentary, "Anonymisation is not Exoneration" Medical Law International 1999, Vol. 4, 69-80.