Surreptitious takings of confidential information
Legal Studies, ISSN: 1748-121X, Vol: 12, Issue: 3, Page: 302-331
1992
- 4Citations
- 152Usage
- 1Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- Usage152
- Abstract Views152
- Captures1
- Readers1
Article Description
There has been considerable litigation concerning the law of confidence in recent years. This includes claims brought by private individuals to restrain the disclosure of medical information and personal secrets, actions by employers against employees to restrain unauthorised use of trade secrets and actions by the government in respect of state secrets. Unfortunately, although the existence of a jurisdiction to restrain breaches of confidence has long been established, there still remains some uncertainty as to the conceptual basis of the action. The conceptual uncertainty has not, however, prevented the courts from recognising the existence of the jurisdiction and establishing the basic criterion of the action.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84985330430&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121x.1992.tb00628.x; https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0261387500013519/type/journal_article; https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0261387500013519; https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1748-121X.1992.tb00628.x; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/554; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1553&context=sol_research; https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121x.1992.tb00628.x; https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/abs/surreptitious-takings-of-confidential-information/6D458025D5F85EAC9A69C21AD1DACED0
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know