Campbell v MGN Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE MORLAND |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2001 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2001] EWHC J1221-2 |
| Date | 21 December 2001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | HQ0100495 |
[2001] EWHC J1221-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr. Justice Morland
HQ0100495
MR. A. CALDECOTT Q.C. and MR. S. SUTTLE (instructed by Messrs. Schilling & Lom and Partners) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MR. D. BROWNE Q.C., MR. M. WARBY and MS. A. COPPOLA (instructed by Messrs. Davenport Lyons) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
(As approved by the Judge)
This judgment is given at the conclusion of submissions by Mr. Andrew Caldecott for the claimant and Mr. Desmond Browne for the defendant during a case management conference in which applications have been made by both parties.
The case is fixed for trial before myself on 11th February 2002. I make it plain at the outset that it should not be thought that I hold any views, provisional or otherwise, as to the substantive merits of either the claim or the defence. Such views will only be formed at the trial when I read the witness statements, hear the oral evidence, and consider the submissions on the facts and law made to me at the trial.
My rulings today are only definitive procedurally. They are made to ensure that the case is tried and prepared for trial in accordance with the overriding objective and in particular C.P.R. rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4. I must ensure that the case is dealt with justly, expeditiously and fairly. That requires identifying the real issue between the parties.
The claimant, Naomi Campbell, is the internationally renowned model. She would not, I would assume, be insulted to be described as an international celebrity. The defendant, M.G.N. Ltd, is the publisher of the daily tabloid, "The Mirror".
The claim arises out of the publication of articles about the claimant in The Mirror on 1st and 5th February this year. The claimant also pleads, by way of a claim for aggravated damages, articles published on 7th and 8th February which she asserts stoke the fire lit by the earlier articles about which she had already complained. In her particulars of claim she sets out parts of the article of 1st February, and I quote, on the front page an article headed "Naomi: I am a drug addict", containing the following words referring to the claimant:
"Supermodel Naomi Campbell is attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings in a courageous bid to beat her addiction to drink and drugs. The 30 year old has been a regular at counselling sessions for 3 months, often attending twice a day. Dressed in jeans and baseball cap she arrived at one of N.A.'s lunchtime meetings this week. Hours later at a different venue she made a low key entrance to a women-only gathering of recovering addicts. Naomi is treated as just another addict trying to put her life back together".
Also on the front page was a photograph of the claimant captioned, "Therapy: Naomi outside meeting". On pages 12 and 13 an article headed,
"Naomi is finally trying to beat the demons that have been haunting her",
containing the following words referring to the claimant,
"In our picture the catwalk queen emerges from a gruelling 2 hour session at Narcotics Anonymous and gives a friend a loving hug".
On page 13 is another photograph of the claimant and several persons entering or standing in or near to the doorway of a building, captioned:
"Hugs: Naomi dressed in jeans and baseball cap arrives for a lunchtime group meeting this week".
In the issue of The Mirror dated 5th February was published an article on page 7 headed,
"Pathetic: after years of self-publicity and illegal drug abuse, Naomi Campbell whinges about privacy",
and the following words referring to the claimant:
"The Mirror revealed last week how she is attending daily meetings of Narcotics Anonymous".
Also on page 7, a photograph of the claimant and several other persons emerging from and walking away from the doorway of a building, captioned:
"Help: Naomi leaves Narcotics Anonymous meeting last week after receiving therapy in her battle against illegal drugs",
and on page 10 a column containing the following words referring to the claimant:
"For the past 3 months she has been attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings to help her fight her addiction to drink and drugs".
In para.6 of the particulars of claim is pleaded these important particulars in support of the claim that the defendant acted in breach of confidence:
"Information about whether a person is receiving medical or similar treatment for addiction and in particular any details relating to such treatment or the person's reaction to it is obviously confidential. The confidentiality is the stronger where, as here, disclosure would tend to disrupt the treatment and/or its benefits for the person concerned and others sharing in or giving or wishing to take part in or participate in the treatment. The very name, 'Narcotics Anonymous', underlines the importance of privacy in the context of the treatment, as do the defendant's own words, 'To the rest of the group she is simply "Naomi", the addict'.
The claimant seeks damages on account of profits in respect of the publication of the alleged confidential information, also damages for infringement of her right of privacy and compensation for publishing sensitive personal data under s.13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and other relief.
The defendant sets out various defences. What might be described as a public domain defence, see the cases of John Lennon, [1978] FSR 573 and of Tom Jones & Ors. [1977] 1 WLR 760. There were denials of breach of confidence, denials of any right of privacy under English law or under article 8 of the Convention, denial of entitlement under the Data Protection Act 1998 and an assertion that the publication was of legitimate public interest. There were positive and detailed denials of damage. I say by way of note that the court must pay particular regard to s.12(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and articles 8 and 10 of the Convention.
In the defence it is pleaded in para.3:
"The general public is familiar, not only with the claimant's appearance and name and some details of her professional, business, and public activities, but also a good deal of information about her private and personal life. This is because she has not only appeared frequently and extensively in media fashion coverage, but has also become an international media personality. She has been for many years the subject of extensive media attention and coverage relating to her private and personal life, activities, and conduct. The claimant has courted such attention and coverage in order to promote her career. To that end she has given numerous media interviews and has willingly disclosed to and in the media intimate details about herself, her private and personal life. She has done so with the intention of fostering public recognition, approval, and sympathy, enhancing her public image and benefiting her professional activities. Aspects of the claimant's private and personal life voluntarily disclosed in this way include otherwise inaccessible details of her family history and circumstances, her early upbringing, her feelings about her parents, her friendships, and her feelings about them, her lovers, details about her relationships with them. The claimant has also invited attention to her sexual life by posing naked for explicit photographs".
Details are given of some 13 publications and a TV interview in a schedule to the defence.
The defence goes on to plead, in para.3.4,
"In order to sustain her public image, the claimant has also volunteered information as to her health, medical condition and her use or alleged non-use of drugs. She has presented herself to and through the media as a woman in good health who has not fallen prey to the drug abuse which notoriously is said to afflict models",
and para.3.5,
"The claimant's voluntary disclosure of information about her private and personal life has in recent times extended to disclosure of the fact that she has undergone extensive therapy aimed at improving, among other things, the behavioural disorders for which she is well known, the disclosure of some of the reasons for undergoing such therapy".
In the reply the claimant admits that she and her career as a model has been the subject of extensive media attention coverage, and in para.1.2 says,
"It is admitted that inevitably the claimant has, from time to time, made statements to the media about aspects of her private life. By so doing the claimant has not forfeited her rights to complain of breaches of confidentiality and/or infringements of her right of privacy".
The word "inevitably" is a word which, in the context of the claimant's lifestyle, has, perhaps surprisingly, caused the defendant much agitation and concern, and features in its part 18 request for further information. In para.3 of the reply the claimant pleads,
"The claimant had every reason to expect privacy when arriving at or leaving a place where medical or similar treatment sessions were held",
and then, in para.4.1, this admission is made, that she has in the past suffered from medical problems caused by the use of drugs. That is why she attended Narcotics Anonymous for treatment. At 4.2,
"The claimant does not claim that the disclosure by the defendant that she had a drug problem was a breach of confidentiality or an infringement of her right of privacy. The claimant's complaint is that by obtaining and publishing information relating to the receipt by the claimant of treatment for her drug problem at Narcotics Anonymous, the defendant acted in breach of confidence and/or...
To continue reading
Request your trial