Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 A.C. 268
Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 is a pivotal case in English contract law, primarily focusing on the extraordinary circumstances under which restitutionary damages may be awarded for breach of contract. This case is crucial for law students as it expands on the traditional understanding of contractual remedies and introduces the concept of disgorgement of profits as a potential remedy.
Facts
George Blake had undertaken not to disclose official information acquired through his work in the intelligence services. After spying for the Soviet Union, conviction and escape from prison, he wrote an autobiography and agreed publication terms that entitled him to royalties. Some material concerned his service, although the information was no longer confidential by the time of publication. The Crown sought to prevent him benefiting from the breach of his undertaking. Ordinary compensatory damages were problematic because publication had not caused an identifiable financial loss to the Crown.
Legal Issue
Could the Crown obtain an account of Blake's publishing profits for breach of contract despite having no corresponding financial loss?
Held
The House of Lords, by a majority, recognised an exceptional entitlement to an account of profits for breach of contract. Lord Nicholls explained that ordinary remedies must be inadequate and that the claimant's legitimate interest in preventing the defendant's profit was a useful guide. These circumstances justified requiring Blake to account for the relevant publishing proceeds.
The intelligence-service undertaking had a special character, and the Crown had a strong interest in preventing service members from profiting through its breach. The result did not depend on the information remaining confidential. Nor did the House create a general election allowing every contractual claimant to choose the defendant's gain instead of compensation for its own loss.
⭐ Legal Principle
An account of profits may exceptionally be available for breach of contract where ordinary remedies are inadequate and the circumstances justify it, including the claimant's legitimate interest in preventing the defendant's gain. It is not the usual measure of contractual damages.
Significance
Blake provides an exceptional contrast with the normal compensatory measure of contractual damages. Its facts explain why the absence of financial loss did not end the claim, but they also caution against extending the remedy to every profitable breach. Morris-Garner v One Step distinguishes this account-of-profits jurisdiction from negotiating damages, which compensate for the economic value of a right in appropriate cases. The two remedies should not be treated as interchangeable.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did the absence of financial loss not defeat the Crown's claim?
The Crown sought an exceptional account of Blake's profits, rather than ordinary compensation measured by its own loss. The majority considered ordinary remedies inadequate and recognised a legitimate interest in preventing profit from breach of this intelligence-service undertaking. That combination justified relief on the particular facts.
Did the information have to remain confidential for the decision?
No. The information was no longer confidential when the autobiography was published. The relevant obligation was Blake's contractual undertaking, and the special circumstances supported an account for its breach. An explanation based solely on disclosure of a currently protected trade secret would miss the feature that made the case unusual.
Are negotiating damages the same as an account of profits?
No. Morris-Garner distinguishes compensation for the economic value of a right from stripping profits under the exceptional Blake jurisdiction. A claimant must identify the legal basis of the requested remedy. The fact that ordinary loss is hard to quantify does not by itself establish entitlement to all the defendant's profits.