Template:Confi injunctions: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Template:Confi injunctions (view source)

Revision as of 10:53, 14 October 2020

134 bytes added , 14 October 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,971

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====Possibility of injunctions and equitable {{confiprov|remedies}}====
+The argument runs that it might be hard to prove that you’ve lost any money as a result of a confidentiality breach, so you want to be sure that [[equitable remedies]] like [[injunction]]s ordering the other guy to keep his mouth shut – those, under English law, that do not technically arise under the law of contract – are available to you.
-Some people like to acknowledge that the potential consequences of [[breach of confidence]] are so severe that ordinary [[contractual damages]] might not be adequate and [[equitable]] relief might be the only means of protecting your position. [[Injunction|Injunctions]], [[dawn raid]]s,  [[Anton Piller]] orders and so on. Whatever floats your boat<ref>See {{Casenote|Anton Piller KG|Manufacturing Processes Limited}}.</ref>. This is by way of [[excuse pre-loading]] to gain an acknowledgment so when the poor victim who goes to the [[courts of chancery]] seeking injunctive relief can point to M’lud (or at the defendant) and say, “You see, your honour? That rascal knew perfectly well I might need an injunction here.”
+In theory, this makes sense: one enters a confidentiality agreement to buy another man’s silence, whether or not there are gains or losses to be had from his doing so — but in practice, it is largely nonsense — who ever sought an injunction on a confi? The better question to ask, we think, is ''why'' [[contractual damages]] are often an “inadequate” remedy. Why? Because it is quite hard to prove [[loss]] through simple disclosure of {{confiprov|confidential information}}. And ''why'' is it hard to prove that [[loss]]? Because, often, ''there won’t have been any''.