尽管如此，它仍然是重要的欣赏，在有效地通知查利，说什么赔偿是在这样的情况下，可仍然有些争议的-虽然大多数评论家认为，公平的赔偿可以获得[ 31 ] -是否损坏可以恢复感情在科尼利厄斯诉德塔兰托[ 32 ]申请人成功的一对一心理医生曾委托他们准备一份法医报告他们送到精神病顾问和申请人的G.P.擅自违约索赔和信心解决损伤问题。因此，申请人获得公平合理的赔偿请求权人的感情伤害和专门提到的判断和对欧洲人权公约1950条8一致，同时也指出，如果任何胜利的机密信息可以披露，只是名义上的损害赔偿，因为有公开在这篇文章的范围允许的限制是空心的，由W诉Egdell [ 33 ]决策支持。此外，查利还需要注意，财务损失是可收回违约的信心-虽然这些难以量化–在科尼利厄斯诉德塔兰托[ 34 ]的决策依据，申请人获检索问题的法医报告[ 35 ]副本的费用赔偿。但它仍然是也，病人/客户能够赔偿他们的健康信息披露不当损害，即使结果是他们没有遭受金融损失的争议，是由X V Y暗示.
Nevertheless, it is still also important to appreciate, in effectively advising Charlie, that the issue of what damages are available in such cases remains somewhat controversial - although most commentators suggest that equitable damages can be awarded - with the issue of whether damages could be recovered for injury to feelings being addressed in Cornelius v. De Taranto where the claimant succeeded in a claim for breach of contract and confidence against a psychiatrist who had been commissioned by them to prepare a medico-legal report they sent to a consultant psychiatrist and the claimant’s G.P. without permission. As a result, the claimant was awarded ‘fair and reasonable’ compensation for the injury to the claimant’s feelings and specifically referred to the judgement as being consistent with Article 8 of the ECHR 1950, whilst also noting that any victory would be hollow if confidential information could be disclosed and only nominal damages awarded because there are limitations to the disclosure that is permitted within the remit of this Article, supported by the decision in W v. Egdell. Furthermore, Charlie also needs to be advised that financial losses are recoverable for breach of confidence - although these can be difficult to quantify – on the basis of the decision in Cornelius v. De Taranto, the Claimant was awarded damages for expenses incurred in retrieving copies of the offending medico-legal report. But it is still also arguable that a patient/client would be able to claim damages for improper disclosure of information about their health even if they suffered no financial loss as a result, as was implied by X v. Y