|
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 12:41:27 +0100 From: Ken Oliphant Subject: HL rules on privacy
The House of Lords has published its decision in what is arguably the first privacy case to reach it (though the principal cause of action is actually breach of confidence). See
"Naomi Campbell wins privacy case": Full
decision at: From a very cursory skim-through, it seems that the House agreed that Campbell had a prima facie right to confidence, and that she had (at least partially) forfeited this by her conduct. The disagreement was whether she had forfeited it to such an extent as to allow the Mirror to publish everything in its story (inc. the accompanying pictures). The interesting stuff (IMO) is about the approach the courts should take to the law of confidence post-Human Rights Act, and, in particular, how the law should accommodate the right to privacy under art. 8 ECHR. Nicholls (at [21]), Hope (at [85]) and Hale (at [134]) all adopt a 'reasonable expectation of confidence' test, apparently dispensing with any need for the defendant, expressly or impliedly, to accept an obligation of confidence. In fact, all three (Hale at [137]) actually talk of 'a reasonable expectation of *privacy*' (my emphasis). Hoffmann seems to accept as much too (at [43]-[52]). No doubt Carswell too, but I haven't yet looked! I enjoyed Baroness Hale's comment: Even the judges know who Naomi Campbell is!
Ken
Oliphant, Cardiff Law School, PO Box 427, Tel: 029 2087 5365. Web page: http://www.cf.ac.uk/claws/staff/oliphant.html.
<<<< Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next Message >>>>>
|
»
»
»
»