The House of Lords upheld her claim, on the basis that her right to privacy was protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

A newspaper reported private sexual activities and argued that the claimant did not have the right to privacy.

The court held that since these activities were carried out in private between consenting adults, there was an expectation of privacy.

A Health Authority released a person with a personality disorder, who subsequently sexually assaulted and killed a four-year-old girl. The action by the parents of the victim against the Health Authority failed.

No duty of care exists if the threat is not directed towards an identifiable person(s).

P, who had an emotional and mental health crisis, informed his doctor that he intended to kill Tarasoff because she refused to have a serious relationship with him. He subsequently killed her. Tarasoff’s parents succeeded in their claim against the health practitioner.

A doctor or health professional owes a duty of care towards an identifiable individual who is targeted specifically and, in these circumstances, disclosure of medical information (in respect of the aggressor) is justifiable.

Dr Egdell prepared a report on W. The report indicated that W had a serious propensity to violence and Dr Egdell wished to disclose this report to the relevant authorities.

Disclosure was justified, under the circumstances, for the prevention of harm to others.

Following a criminal trial (against the husband of a woman charged with rape), medical details revealing an HIV infection were disclosed.

Breach of confidence may be justified on the basis of the specific nature and gravity of the circumstances, but must be proportionate.