Attorney General V Blake House of Lords

Attorney General v Blake, [2001] 1 A.C. 268 (2000)
© 2023 Thomson Reuters.
2
establish loss it was entitled to no more than nominal
damages. However, the Court of Appeal allowed the
appeal 
*269
on the public law issues and held that,
since the defendant was guilty of serious breaches
of the 1989 Act for which he would never be tried
or punished but from which he had and would
continue to derive financial benefits, the court's
jurisdiction at the suit of the Attorney General
extended to enforcing public policy by ensuring that
a criminal did not retain the profits derived from the
commission of a crime, and accordingly restrained
the defendant by injunction from receiving payment
from the exploitation of his book or any information
obtained as a member of the SIS.
On the defendant's appeal—
(1) that, although the injunction restraining the
defendant from receiving royalties was interlocutory
in character and was expressed to freeze rather than
to extinguish the defendant's title to the royalties,
there was, in the absence of a private law claim,
and in the absence of any realistic prospect of the
defendant returning to the United Kingdom to face
criminal proceedings, no event pending which that
money was to be held; that, therefore, the injunction
was in substance a confiscatory order in that it was
envisaged that the defendant would be deprived
indefinitely of his unpaid royalties; that the making
of confiscatory orders was strictly controlled by
statute, and the court had no common law power
to confiscate property without compensation; that
on the facts of the defendant's case there was
no statutory power to confiscate his property; and
that, accordingly, the court had acted outside its
jurisdiction in granting the injunction (post, pp
289E-H, 290B-D, 292E-293B, 294F-G, 296B-C).
(2) Dismissing the appeal (Lord Hobhouse
of Woodborough dissenting), that in an
exceptional case where the normal remedies of
damages, specific performance and injunction were
inadequate compensation for a breach of contract,
the court could, if justice demanded it, grant the
discretionary remedy of requiring the defendant to
account to the plaintiff for the benefits received
from the breach of contract; that the defendant's
undertaking as to confidentiality was closely akin to
a fiduciary obligation where an account of profits
was a standard remedy in the event of breach;
that, in order to ensure that there were no financial
incentives for other members of the intelligence
service to breach their undertakings and to ensure
that the morale and trust between members of
the service when engaged in secret and dangerous
operations was not undermined, the Crown had
a legitimate interest in preventing the defendant
profiting from the serious and damaging breach
of his undertaking; that therefore, although the
information disclosed was no longer confidential,
there were good grounds for imposing an absolute
rule against disclosure; and that, accordingly, in the
special circumstances of the intelligence service,
and in view of the fact that the magnitude of the
royalties from the publication of the defendant's
autobiography were attributable to his notoriety as
an infamous spy, the just response to the defendant's
breach was that an account of profits be ordered
and that the Attorney General be paid an amount
equal to whatever was owed by the publishers to the
defendant (post, pp 284G-285H, 287C-H, 288E-F,
290B-D, 291F-292E, 293B).
Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd
[1974] 1 WLR 798 approved .
Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd [1993]
1 WLR 1361, CA considered .
Decision of the Court of Appeal [1998] Ch 439;
[1998] 2 WLR 805; [1998] 1 All ER 833 varied.
The following cases are referred to the opinions of their
Lordships:
• Attorney General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd
[1920] AC 508, HL(E)
• Battishill v Reed (1856) 18 CB 696
• Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58; [1967] 3
WLR 932; [1967] 2 All ER 1197 , HL(E)
• Bracewell v Appleby [1975] Ch 408; [1975] 2
WLR 282; [1975] 1 All ER 993
• British Motor Trade Association v Gilbert
[1951] 2 All ER 641
• Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC
75; [1964] 2 WLR 1231; [1964] 2 All ER 348 ,
HL(Sc)
• Chief Constable of Kent v V [1983] QB 34;
[1982] 3 WLR 462; [1982] 3 All ER 36, CA

---