## Facts

- George Blake served in the United Kingdom security and intelligence services (MI6) from 1944 to 1961 and secretly acted as a Soviet agent from 1951 to 1960.
- On entering service, Blake signed an express undertaking not to disclose official information obtained through his employment; the obligation continued after service ended.
- In 1961, Blake pleaded guilty to offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911 and received a 42-year prison sentence.
- In 1966, Blake escaped from prison, fled to Moscow, and remained a fugitive.
- In 1989, Blake entered a contract granting a publisher exclusive UK rights to publish his autobiography; the publisher agreed to pay £150,000 in advances against royalties.
- The autobiography was published in 1990 without Crown authorization; by then, the information disclosed was no longer confidential in the strict sense and was not damaging to the public interest.
- About £60,000 had been paid to Blake, with roughly £90,000 remaining due; the Attorney General sought to prevent further payments so Blake would not profit from his wrongdoing.

## Issues

1. Whether, in an “exceptional” case, a court may award a gain-based remedy (account of profits/restitutionary damages) for breach of contract rather than limiting relief to compensation for the claimant’s loss.
2. If a private-law remedy was unavailable, whether a public-law basis permitted injunctive relief restraining payment of royalties to prevent Blake from profiting from criminal conduct.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that, in exceptional circumstances, an account of profits may be awarded for breach of contract when orthodox remedies are inadequate to protect the promisee’s legitimate interests.
- The Crown was entitled to require Blake to account for profits from the breach, including unpaid sums due under the publishing contract, despite the Crown’s inability to prove measurable financial loss.
- The House of Lords modified the existing injunction, directing that sums otherwise payable to Blake be paid to the Crown, avoiding a broadly “confiscatory” freeze.
- Because a private-law gain-based remedy was available, the House declined to develop a separate public-law jurisdiction to reach the same outcome.
- Lord Hobhouse dissented in part, rejecting an account of profits on these facts and warning against extending contract remedies to achieve what he viewed as a policy-driven result better suited to legislation.

## Legal Principles

- Contract damages are generally compensatory and measured by the claimant’s loss, not the defendant’s gain.
- An account of profits for breach of contract is available only in exceptional cases where:
  - the claimant has a legitimate interest in preventing the defendant’s profit-making breach; and
  - damages and other orthodox remedies (injunction, specific performance) are inadequate.
- “Legitimate interest” may include protecting the integrity of contractual obligations requiring strict non-disclosure, even where the claimant cannot show pecuniary loss.
- Courts should treat gain-based relief for breach of contract as a narrow exception, to be developed case by case rather than as a general principle.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords recognized a narrow, exceptional private-law remedy allowing the Crown to recover Blake’s profits from publishing his autobiography in breach of a lifelong non-disclosure undertaking, because conventional contract remedies could not adequately protect the Crown’s legitimate interests.


Att’y Gen. v. Blake, [2001] 1 A.C. 268 (H.L. 2000)