-
Douglas v. Hallo (2000)
- Wedding between Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas. Had sold rights to Ok magazine; rival Hallo had photographer who surreptitiously took photos as part of wedding party. Douglases sued for breach of confidence; court upheld the right of the Douglases to protect their wedding. Court argued law of privacy would uphold law of confidentiality; duty of confidentiality didn’t need to be identified. Setting was private, info had a commercial value — injunction would be granted.
-
Theakston v. MGN Ltd (2002): photographs
- TV star visited brothel; story was told about exploits. Injunction sought, not granted about an account of what happened, though injunction granted against photographs being published.
- “Photographs can be particularly intrusive, particularly if not done with consent.”
-
Peck v. UK (2003): privacy in a public place
- Person tried to commit suicide, picture being prevented given to media, ECHR came down on his side and the council had acted inappropriately in providing photos to media.
-
Princess Caroline von Hannover v. Germany (2004)
- Argued pictures taken of her were not of public interest and she was being harassed. ECHR came down on Princess Caroline von Hannover’s side.
-
Naomi Campbell v. MGN Ltd (2004) (the major case re: privacy)
- Campbell sued over report in Daily Mirror talking about her treatments for drug addiction. Report showed a photo of her leaving therapy session and gave details about therapy; frequency of therapy. Went to House of Lords, which came down 3-2 in favour of Campbell saying it was acceptable to publish details of drug treatment and to say she had a drug problem, but not acceptable to say she was going to Narcotics Anonymous, or where the treatment, or the kind of treatment; also, unacceptable to show photos of her leaving Narcotics Anonymous. Termed “Wrongful disclosure of private information”. Looks at the following:
a. Is it private information?
b. If disclosure took place, would it cause substantial offence to a reasonable person?
c. What are the benefits of disclosure?
d. Where does the public interest lie?
- Lady Justice Hale: distinction being made between coming out from treatment or going about their normal business.
-
McKennitt v. Ash (2005)
- Brought privacy to another level; a Canadian singer (Lorraine McKennitt) had book written about her by friend. Discussed things only a friend would be aware of.
- Court sided with McKennitt; argued she was entitled to protect this information and friend didn’t have right to publish it. In judgement itself, not made clear what was true or not; court said it wasn’t for the claimant to sift through information to discriminate against what is true or not as that would undermine privacy further.
-
Murray v. Big Pictures (2008)
- JK Rowling followed around Edinburgh with child in a pram; injunction sought to prevent photographs to pursue her.
- Court granted, arguing special protection granted to children.
-
Max Mosley v. News Group Newspapers Ltd (2008)
- Sued over NOTW articles suggesting he had been involved in Nazi-themed sex parties.
- Judge came down arguing on the facts that there wasn’t evidence the party was Nazi themed. If it was, there would be public interest.
- Mosley then argued to the ECHR he should be aware of articles coming out about him, but ECHR argued he didn’t have a right to be able to step in an attempt to stop publication. No right for claimant to be told about matter relating to privacy prior to publication.
-
LNS v. Persons Unknown (2010)
- Footballer (John Terry) tried to create a blanket injunction about an affair. Came down against Terry, arguing he was doing this only to protect commercial interests.
-
Super injunctions
-
Ferdinand v. MGN Ltd (2011)
-
Spelman v. Express Newspapers Ltd
- Newspaper got paper about rugby player (son of MP) had been ordering illegal performance enhancing drugs. Injunction initially granted then revoked; argued info was in the public domain.
-
Princess Caroline von Hannover (2012)
- Case showed her and her family walking through the streets of Monaco with father, Prince Rainier, who had been ill. Law came down on side of press, arguing showing a reigning monarch in recovery was in the public interest.
-
Human Rights Act §12(3)
- No injunction should be granted unless applicant is likely to win its case.
- Media has to be given notice of applicantions
- Much lower test than in libel (I.e., Bonnard v. Perryman), where it would be granted only if applicant is able to establish the falsity of the claims.