Archer v Williams

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMR. JUSTICE JACKSON
Judgment Date03 July 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] EWHC 1670 (QB)
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Docket NumberHQ02X00768
Date03 July 2003
Between:
Lady Archer
Claimant
and
Jane Williams
Defendant

[2003] EWHC 1670 (QB)

Before:

Mr. Justice Jackson

HQ02X00768

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

MR. T. LINDEN (instructed by Messrs. Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.

MR. R. DE MELLO (instructed by Messrs. C.S. Lyall) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.

(As approved by the Judge)

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
1

This judgment is in seven parts, namely: Part 1, introduction; Part 2, the facts; Part 3, the present proceedings; Part 4, who owns the working diaries; Part 5, the claim for an injunction; Part 6, the claim for damages; Part 7, conclusion.

PART 1 INTRODUCTION

2

This is a claim for breach of confidence. The principal remedy which the claimant seeks is an injunction to restrain future breaches of confidence. She also seeks delivery up of confidential material and damages for past breach of confidence. She makes it plain in her third witness statement that the claim for damages is the least important part of her claim.

3

The principal evidence at the trial was given by the two parties. The only other live evidence came from Mr. Zahawi, who gave very brief evidence about two telephone calls. The arguments of counsel have ranged widely over the law of confidentiality, as it has evolved since the Human Rights Act 1988 came into force. I am grateful to counsel on both sides for their helpful submissions.

4

Before dealing with the issues in this case, I must outline the facts.

PART 2 THE FACTS

5

From June 1988 until November 2001 the claimant employed the defendant as her secretary and personal assistant. At all material times the claimant has lived at and worked from the Old Vicarage, Grantchester, Cambridge. The claimant is the wife of a well known writer and former politician, Lord Archer. The claimant is also a well known person in her own right. She was for many years a lecturer in chemistry at Cambridge University. She is the author or co-author of scientific books and articles. She holds or has held a large number of senior positions. These include, for example, a number of non-executive directorships, various university positions and membership of numerous boards and councils.

6

The claimant's letter of engagement to the defendant date 19th May 1988 included the following passage:

"As you have seen, my life and work have quite a number of different strands and what I badly need is more time for my scientific work. Therefore I hope to delegate to you, as you learn your way around, increasing responsibility. Your duties will include handling my mail in consultation with me, devising and maintaining an improved filing system, dealing with the telephone in as far as you can, and undertaking administrative household matters if they arise. When I am away, I would also like you to take responsibility for seeing that Glen Pettit, our housekeeper, and Richard Overy, our gardener, have what they need to do their jobs efficiently, and that someone attends to the cats regularly.

I need hardly to add that some of my work is confidential in nature and that I rely absolutely on your discretion in handling and dealing with the associated paperwork and related matters. In particular, Anglia Television and Robert Fraser papers sometimes contain commercially sensitive information which must not be discussed with or disclosed to a third person not even a spouse. Moreover, as I am sure you appreciate, discretion is often needed in dealing with correspondence and telephone calls from the media and members of the public, and vigilance is needed at all times in dealing with household security."

7

For many years the claimant and the defendant had an excellent working relationship. Indeed, in 1996 the defendant was one of the candidates in the competition for PA of the year. She achieved second place out of all the contestants. In support of the defendant's candidacy in that competition, the claimant wrote as follows:

"Jane has been with me for eight years, during which time she has handled all my business and several personal matters with great skill, dedication and professionalism. I would be lost without her."

The claimant made similar comments about the defendant on other occasions.

8

In July 1996 the claimant and her husband held a party to celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary. The defendant was heavily involved in the arrangements. She and her then partner, Mr. Powling, attended the party as guests. Unfortunately, the defendant provided to Mr. Powling a list of the names and addresses of all the guests. Mr. Powling subsequently approached some of them to solicit business. The claimant was rightly indignant. The defendant was most contrite. The cause of this lapse appears to have been naivety on the part of the defendant and conduct by Mr. Powling which went much further than expected. In crossexamination about this incident the defendant said that she made a ridiculous error of judgment, that the claimant was rightly concerned and so was she. The defendant offered her immediate resignation but the claimant did not accept it. The claimant did, however, write a letter to the defendant on 13th August saying:

"I have written separately to Peter, expressing our indignation that our private party, at which he was a guest, should have been used by him to solicit new business. The point that concerns you, which we have already discussed, is that some of the addresses which you passed to Peter are highly sensitive and confidential. They should not have been divulged to him, and certainly not without reference to me.

Be assured that I do recognise and value your discretion, which is why this lapse and its consequences have been all the more unexpected and unwelcome."

In cross-examination the defendant was asked about the last paragraph. She noted the reference to her discretion. She added that this was why she was so upset about what she had done.

9

It appears to me that both parties dealt with this unfortunate lapse in an appropriate and constructive manner. This enabled their working relationship to continue to run smoothly at least for some years.

10

At the end of the decade the stresses upon the claimant increased, since her husband was accused of perjury in an earlier libel case and was forced to withdraw from political life. This led to increased media interest in the Archer family. In a letter to the defendant dated 22nd December 2000 the claimant dealt with a number of matters concerning the defendant's employment. She also included the following paragraph about confidentiality:

"I expect to become the target of further unwelcome media attention next year, and I hope this will not be disruptive to the household. Should you receive any overtures from the press, please inform me immediately. My privacy is important to me, and I would like to acknowledge and thank you for the confidentiality that you have maintained. Confidentiality law is complex and has recently changed to strengthen an individual's right to privacy, and also an employee's obligation to maintain confidentiality both during and after the period of employment in respect of all paper and electronic records held by or generated on behalf of their employer, as well as any knowledge of the employer's domestic and personal affairs."

11

In her response, dated 3rd January 2001, the defendant made a number of complaints about her terms of employment and argued that Alison Prince, Lord Archer's PA in London, was receiving preferential treatment. In relation to the matter of confidentiality, the defendant wrote as follows:

"You mention confidentiality, yet do not rate my loyalty as highly as Alison's, despite the fact that I have been employed for considerably longer than her. This partiality, particularly in the past couple of years when media attention focused in so closely, is disappointing."

12

In her evidence the defendant said that she well understood the significance of the paragraph in the claimant's letter concerning confidentiality. Indeed, in conversations at around that time the claimant may well have stressed the need for confidentiality, but there was no need for her to do this. The defendant said in evidence that she had no quarrel with the claimant's concerns about confidentiality at that time.

13

On 19th February 2001 the claimant and the defendant had a meeting to discuss a number of matters arising out of their recent exchange of correspondence. At no stage in this meeting did the defendant take any issue with what the claimant had said in her letter about confidentiality.

14

In spring 2001 issues arose concerning the defendant's sending of e-mails from the claimant's home. This led to a disciplinary meeting on 27th April, after which the claimant sent to the defendant a formal written warning. On 27th May Lord Archer's trial for perjury commenced at the Central Criminal Court in London. On 30th May, unknown to the claimant, the defendant approached the police and provided a witness statement in support of the prosecution. On 1st June the claimant learned of this development. She spoke to the defendant and then she wrote to the defendant as follows:

"I am writing to confirm our conversation earlier today.

I understand that you have given a statement to the police in connection with the trial currently underway involving my husband. I stressed to you that this was quite proper for you to do. Of course, you must co operate with the police fully to assist them in their investigations and I would in no way seek to criticise your actions in this respect.

However, I am extremely conscious of the fact that you may be called as a prosecution...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Henderson v Walker
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 3 September 2019
    ...difficult to find breach of confidence cases involving personal information that are not essentially claims for invasion of privacy. In Archer v Williams, the High Court of England and Wales awarded £2,500 to a claimant whose personal assistant provided private information to a public relat......
  • Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 24 July 2008
    ...and they have all been pitched at relatively modest levels compared with some defamation awards: see e.g. Campbell (cited above), Lady Archer v Williams [2003] EMLR 38, Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2003] 3 All ER 996 and McKennitt v Ash [2006] EMLR 178. There have been some settlements which hav......
  • Dylan Weller and Others v Associated Newspapers Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 16 April 2014
    ...of £1,000) for the publication of the photographs in Campbell v MGN; an award of £2,500 for the publication of medical information in Archer v Williams [2003] EWHC 1670 (QB); £3,500 for each Claimant for the publication of the photographs in Douglas v Hello! (No. 3); and £2,000 for the publ......
  • Shobna Gulati and Others v MGN Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 21 May 2015
    ...I have a recollection only of a sort of range, and I have no knowledge of the facts of any of those settled cases in any event. 173 In Archer v Williams [2003] EMLR 38 the claimant was awarded £2,500 for the wrongful disclosure of the fact that she had had plastic surgery. The judge (Jacks......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Biomedical Law and Ethics
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...v Fitchett [1958] NZLR 396. 74 See Campbell v MGN [2002] EWHC 499; Cornelius v De Taranto [2001] EMLR 329 and Lady Archer v Williams [2003] EWHC 1670 (QB). 75 OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21 at [255], per Lord Nicholls. 76 See N J McBride & R Bagshaw, Tort Law Pearson, 6th Ed, 2018) ch 17 at......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT