Carina Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Tugendhat,THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 1296 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ10D03060 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 24 May 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 1296 (QB)
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ10D03060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Matthew Ryder QC & William Bennett (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) for the Claimant
Antony White QC & Alexandra Marzec (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 23,24,25,26,27 April 2012
By claim form issued on 11 August 2010 the Claimant ("Ms Trimingham") complained that the Defendant had wrongfully published private information concerning herself in eight articles.
Mr Christopher Huhne MP had been re-elected as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh in Hampshire at the General Election held in May 2010, just over a month before the first of the articles complained of. He became Secretary of State for Energy in the Coalition Government. He was one of the leading figures in the Government and in the Liberal Democrat Party. In 2008 Ms Trimingham and Mr Huhne started an affair, unknown to both Mr Huhne's wife, Ms Pryce, and Ms Trimingham's civil partner. By 2008 Mr Huhne had become the Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. At that time he had been married to Ms Pryce for almost 25 years. They had five children, three together, and two from Ms Pryce's first marriage. Until 20 June 2010, Ms Trimingham was living with her civil partner.
As a result of the disclosure of the relationship between Mr Huhne and Ms Trimingham, Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce separated and subsequently divorced. Ms Trimingham's relationship with her civil partner had concluded in October 2009, but they continued to share a flat together until June 2010.
On Saturday 19 June 2010 reporters from The People newspaper stopped Ms Trimingham and Mr Huhne at Waterloo Station, where they had arrived together from his constituency. They put to Mr Huhne that he was having an affair. That evening Mr Huhne released a short statement saying: "I am in a serious relationship with Carina Trimingham and I am separating from my wife". Ms Trimingham made no public statement and took down her Facebook page and Twitter account.
The eight articles Ms Trimingham complained of in August 2011 were as follows:
1. "Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne pictured with his mistress hours before he admitted cheating on his wife of 26 years", Mail on Sunday 20 June 2010.
2. "Chris Huhne's bisexual lover: Life and very different loves of the PR girl in Doc Martens" by Barbara Davies, Daily Mail 21 June 2010.
3. "First picture of Chris Huhne's lover and the lesbian civil partner she has left broken-hearted" by Barbara Davies, Daily Mail 22 June 2010.
4. "It's Chris Huhne's hypocrisy and lies that matter, not his sex life" by Richard Littlejohn, Daily Mail 22 June 2010.
5. "Cheat on my wife? Nothing like that will ever emerge? What hypocrite Huhne told the voters in 2007" by Sam Greenhill and Katherine Faulkner, Daily Mail 23 June 2010.
6. "Huhne, Hughes and their very Liberal lover" by Richard Kay, Daily Mail 24 June 2010.
7. "Did Huhne's wife lose her job over his affair?" by Sam Greenhill, Daily Mail 24 June 2010.
8. "Chris Huhne's 'shocked' wife instructs divorce lawyers on the grounds of 'admitted adultery'", by Michael Seamark, Daily Mail, 1 July 2010.
Following three amendments to her Particulars of Claim, Ms Trimingham now sues for infringement of her rights to privacy under three separate statutes. Her first two claims, in the claim form issued in August 2010, were for interference with her privacy right under the Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988 s.85 ("CPDA"), in respect of two photographs, and for misuse of private information pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 (" HRA") and ECHR Art 8 ("right to respect for private life"). Her third claim, which was added by amendment in October 2011, is under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ("PHA").
On 4 October 2011, permission was given to extend the claim in misuse of private information to cover 39 articles dated on and after 25 September 2010 published in the print edition of the Daily Mail, and Mail Online. These are listed in a Schedule of Further Publications headed "Articles containing offensive references to Ms Trimingham … excluding the original 8 articles complained of").
By a further amendment made by consent on 13 October 2011, the claims in misuse of private information and harassment were based on the original 8 articles, plus 57 articles from 21 June onwards (a total of 65 articles).
The Re-re-Amended Particulars of Claim also include a claim in respect of a Schedule of Readers' Comments which she pleads " taunt and lampoon the Claimant for being ugly and attack her in regard to her sexuality".
RELIEF CLAIMED
The relief claimed in this action is damages including aggravated damages and an injunction. The form of the injunction in the Statement of Case is:
"To restrain the Defendant … from further publishing or causing or permitting the publication of (a) photographs concerning the Claimant's civil [partnership] ceremony; (b) information of the type set out in paragraphs 8.1 to 8.5 above and (c) [added by re-re-amendment by order dated 29 November 2011] information to the effect that the Claimant is ugly and has a masculine appearance".
In his skeleton argument dated 19 April 2011 the form of injunction Mr Ryder seeks is as follows:
"The Defendant shall not harass the Claimant. The Defendant shall also refrain from further publication that makes direct or indirect reference to the Claimant's sexual orientation, unless such reference is relevant beyond the mere fact of her current relationship with Mr Huhne and her separation from her former partner. "
Since the injunction sought would affect the Convention right to freedom of expression of the Defendant and the journalists who wrote the articles, the HRA s12 applies. That section includes the following:
"12(1) This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression…
(3) No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.
(4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—
(a) the extent to which—
(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or
(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;
(b) any relevant privacy code…."
The right to freedom of expression is set out in the ECHR as follows:
"Article 10 freedom of expression
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority …
(2) The exercise of these freedoms since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society … for the protection of health or morals, for protection of the … rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence …"
The provision which Ms Trimingham submits is a relevant privacy code is the Editors' Code of Practice ratified by the Press Complaints Commission (commonly known as the PCC Code). Clause 12 is headed "Discrimination" and reads as follows:
"1. The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
2. Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story."
There appear to me to be difficulties about the form of the injunction sought, since injunctions have to have the clarity required of a provision which may be enforced by proceedings for contempt of court. But in the event I have not had to consider this point.
THE PARTIES
The Defendant is the publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday newspapers and of the website Mail Online. Both those titles and the website enjoy a very substantial circulation and readership within this jurisdiction.
In her Particulars of Claim Ms Trimingham states this about herself:
"The Claimant is a private individual. On 16 June 2007 she entered into a civil partnership".
In the Skeleton argument for the trial in October 2011 she adds that "she has been involved in political campaigns but in the 'backroom' as a 'party worker'". She identifies the campaigns of Mr Huhne to be party leader ending in December 2007, of Mr Paddick to become Mayor of London in May 2008 and of Mr Huhne during the general election campaign in May 2010.
In evidence she stated that she has worked in the field of journalism, communications and public relations for over 20 years. She accepted that her role in each of the three campaigns she had identified was press officer. At the time of the general election in 2010 she was the campaigns director for the Electoral Reform Society. But she was on secondment from that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
(1) Shakir Ali v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd
...against disclosure of information of this kind. In support of this contention, counsel for Channel 5 relied in particular on Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 1296 (QB), [2012] 4 All ER 717 at [93]–[95], [249]–[250] and [289] (Tugendhat J) and Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2......
-
Siobhain Crosbie v Caroline Ley
... [2009] EWCA Civ 46; Dowson v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2010] EWHC 2612 (QB); Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 1296 (QB); [2012] 4 All ER 717; Hayes v Willoughby [2013] 1 WLR 935; R v Smith [2013] 1 WLR 1399; Law Society v Kordowski [2014] EMLR 2; Merlin ......
-
Pavel Karpov v William Felix Browder and Others
...into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each. 46 This test was recently applied by Tugendhat J in Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] 4 All ER 717 at [55], where he characterised the final proposition as the 'ultimate balancing test.' 47 Mr White also su......
-
David Neil Gerrard v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd
...to freedom of expression, which must be given its due importance. As Tugendhat J observed in Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 1296 (QB) at [267] “[i]t would be a serious interference with freedom of expression if those wishing to express their own views could be silenced ......