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.
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.