Legal Case Summary
Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd and Others [1976] QB 752
Joint responsibility; public policy; publication
Facts
A Cabinet minister kept a diary of Cabinet discussions and events with the intention to once publish the contents in a book. After the minister’s death, volume one of the book (Diaries of a Cabinet Minister) was sent for approval to and rejected by the Secretary of the Cabinet. Despite an undertaking by literary executors not to publish the book without prior notice to the Treasury Solicitor, parts of the book were published wihout consent. The Attorney-General applied for an injunction against the publishers.
Issues
The reason for the Attorney-General’s request for an injunction was publishing the book would be contrary to the public interest. More specifically, the doctrine of collective responsibility required details of Cabinet discussions and potential differences to be kept confidential.
Decision / Outcome
The Court held that it had the power to stop the publication of information that was in breach of confidence based on public policy grounds. The preservation of the doctrine of collective responsibility within the Cabinet was held to be in the public interest. Agreeing with the Attorney-General, the Court found that the revelation of individual Mnisters’ views and opinions disclosed within the framework of confidential Cabinet meetings would undermine the doctrine – at least until a certain period time passed. In this particular case, however, 10 years had passed and the volume one did not contain any information that should have remained confidential. Consequently, the injunction was rejected and publication was allowed to go ahead.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752. The case remains good law as a foundational authority on the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence in the context of governmental and Cabinet confidentiality, and on the court’s jurisdiction to restrain publication on public interest grounds.
The broader legal landscape in which this case sits has developed considerably since 1976. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, and subsequent cases — most notably Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 and McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714 — have substantially reframed the law of confidence, particularly in relation to private individuals. The older public policy framework described in Jonathan Cape must now be read alongside this developed jurisprudence. For governmental confidentiality specifically, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is also now a relevant part of the legal context, though it does not affect the correctness of the case itself. Readers should treat this summary as accurate for its stated facts and outcome, while being aware that the surrounding legal framework has evolved.
