Talk:Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England

A fact from Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 January 2008, and was viewed approximately 901 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the landmark 1924 case Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England clarified English law on the obligations that a bank has to protect the confidentiality of its customers?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/January.

Wikipedia

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright concerns

Internet archives confirm that the external site had published this paper several years before its introduction here. It cannot be utilized without verification of authorization. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note at WikiProject Law requesting assistance filling this gap. I believe that this page may be useful to the project, given the DYK history, so I have not deleted it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that this important article has been deleted, as only one paragraph violated copyright. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed seem to be an important article.

I see the opening 3 paragraphs here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040711120238/http://austlii.edu.au/~alan/tournier.html (nearly the first half the article as of October.) Was the second half (also important) written before or after this was pasted in. By whom? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is an important subject. Unfortunately, the identified copyright infringement (which, as you note, was nearly half the article) was present from the article's creation by Chrisieboy on 10 January 2008; there was no clean version to revert to. When there are clear revisions in the page history of the text in question is a minor part of the article, material can be excised...although care needs to be taken to verify that other material added at the same time or by the same contributor does not also infringe. (See, for example, this.) Our article used to say, "A banker's duty of confidentiality is overridden by potential danger to the national interest however. In times of war, for example, a bank would have a public duty to disclose information relating to a particular customer to the authorities, if it had knowledge of that customer trading with the enemy." Cf. that site: "A bank's duty of confidentiality is overridden by potential danger to the state or public duty. In times of war, for example, a bank would have a public duty to disclose information relating to a particular customer to the authorities if it has knowledge of that customer trading with the enemy." I see that so far there have been no takers from WikiProject Law to help out since my request. Perhaps there will be some takers soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That explains why the article's creator did not answer my question himself. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you are implying here, but if you are suggesting that the remainder of the article was taken from the page cited above that is not the case. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I am not sure how that explains why I didn't answer your question though. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the rest of the article was not taken from the page cited above. For instance, some of it was also copied from http://www.mourant.com/userfiles/files/The_duty_of_confidentiality_The_rule_and_the_four_exceptions.pdf. Cf. one passage you placed on Wikipedia: "This would occur, for instance, in proceedings by the bank against a customer claiming repayment of an overdraft, where the bank must state details of the amount of the overdraft on the face of a summons which is, of course, a public document." That source, "This would occur, for example, in proceedings by the bank against a customer claiming repayment of an overdraft, where the bank must state details of the amount of the overdraft on the face of a summons which is, of course, a public document." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]