King's College London

Research portal

Confidential Information as Property?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Confidential Information as Property? / Aplin, Tanya.

In: King's Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2, N/A, 08.2013, p. 172–201.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Aplin, T 2013, 'Confidential Information as Property?', King's Law Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, N/A, pp. 172–201. https://doi.org/10.5235/09615768.24.2.172

APA

Aplin, T. (2013). Confidential Information as Property? King's Law Journal, 24(2), 172–201. [N/A]. https://doi.org/10.5235/09615768.24.2.172

Vancouver

Aplin T. Confidential Information as Property? King's Law Journal. 2013 Aug;24(2):172–201. N/A. https://doi.org/10.5235/09615768.24.2.172

Author

Aplin, Tanya. / Confidential Information as Property?. In: King's Law Journal. 2013 ; Vol. 24, No. 2. pp. 172–201.

Bibtex Download

@article{79b79984b80b43bf8e7162d62fcfe6f7,
title = "Confidential Information as Property?",
abstract = "In Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1214, [2011] Env LR 12 the Court of Appeal held that confidential information fell within Article 1 of the First Protocol ('A1-P1') of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Veolia decision reopens the debate about confidential information as property, but this time through the prism of human rights. The court's readiness to analogise from Strasbourg jurisprudence to widen the scope of A1-P1 and to ignore extensive domestic law on this issue is concerning. At the very least, it demonstrates a stark contrast between the 'public law' or human rights notion of property in A1-P1 and the private law notion that has been articulated in the case law. Whether the 'property' label fits confidential information may be doubted given that confidential information struggles to exhibit the characteristics of permanence and stability; excludability is problematic and we see contorted and artificial notions of exchange, alienation and ownership. As well, including confidential information within A1-P1 creates at least two risks, namely, the pressure to expand protection for confidential information and analytical disruption. This should lead us to be cautious about unthinkingly creating a human right to the protection of confidential information.",
author = "Tanya Aplin",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
doi = "10.5235/09615768.24.2.172",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "172–201",
journal = "King's Law Journal",
issn = "0961-5768",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Confidential Information as Property?

AU - Aplin, Tanya

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - In Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1214, [2011] Env LR 12 the Court of Appeal held that confidential information fell within Article 1 of the First Protocol ('A1-P1') of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Veolia decision reopens the debate about confidential information as property, but this time through the prism of human rights. The court's readiness to analogise from Strasbourg jurisprudence to widen the scope of A1-P1 and to ignore extensive domestic law on this issue is concerning. At the very least, it demonstrates a stark contrast between the 'public law' or human rights notion of property in A1-P1 and the private law notion that has been articulated in the case law. Whether the 'property' label fits confidential information may be doubted given that confidential information struggles to exhibit the characteristics of permanence and stability; excludability is problematic and we see contorted and artificial notions of exchange, alienation and ownership. As well, including confidential information within A1-P1 creates at least two risks, namely, the pressure to expand protection for confidential information and analytical disruption. This should lead us to be cautious about unthinkingly creating a human right to the protection of confidential information.

AB - In Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1214, [2011] Env LR 12 the Court of Appeal held that confidential information fell within Article 1 of the First Protocol ('A1-P1') of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Veolia decision reopens the debate about confidential information as property, but this time through the prism of human rights. The court's readiness to analogise from Strasbourg jurisprudence to widen the scope of A1-P1 and to ignore extensive domestic law on this issue is concerning. At the very least, it demonstrates a stark contrast between the 'public law' or human rights notion of property in A1-P1 and the private law notion that has been articulated in the case law. Whether the 'property' label fits confidential information may be doubted given that confidential information struggles to exhibit the characteristics of permanence and stability; excludability is problematic and we see contorted and artificial notions of exchange, alienation and ownership. As well, including confidential information within A1-P1 creates at least two risks, namely, the pressure to expand protection for confidential information and analytical disruption. This should lead us to be cautious about unthinkingly creating a human right to the protection of confidential information.

U2 - 10.5235/09615768.24.2.172

DO - 10.5235/09615768.24.2.172

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 172

EP - 201

JO - King's Law Journal

JF - King's Law Journal

SN - 0961-5768

IS - 2

M1 - N/A

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454