Jaqueline Adeniji v The London Borough of Newham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 October 2001 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2001] EWHC J1016-2 |
| Docket Number | Case No:01TLQ 823 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 16 October 2001 |
[2001] EWHC J1016-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
The Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL.
The Honourable Mr Justice Garland
Case No:01TLQ 823
MR. J. CRITCHLEY (instructed by CCL) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MS V. MARSHALL (instructed by Messrs Browne Jacobson (appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Tuesday, 16th October, 2001
May it please you, my Lord. In this case I represent the claimant, Jacqueline Adeniji, my learned friend Ms Vanessa Marshall represents the London Borough of Newham. I don't know whether you have been provided with, firstly, a trial bundle in this case?
MR. JUSTICE GARLAND: I have if it is this?
Yes, and, secondly, a draft of a Consent Order?
MR. JUSTICE GARLAND: Yes, that arrived by fax.
I hope it is legible. Has my Lord had an opportunity to look at that?
MR. JUSTICE GARLAND: Yes, I have yes.
The position is that the claimant is now 10 years old. The approval of the court is required for a settlement of this character and my Lord will remember the practice direction dealing with this matter is at page 361 of the present practice, volume 1.
MR. JUSTICE GARLAND: Yes.
Paragraph 6.1 and 6.2 of the practice direction just embodies what used to be the practice in this division of the High Court beforehand and my Lord is very familiar with that. I would say my Lord knows exactly what stance I adopt. This is really a very clear case for the compromise to be approved. If I tell you a little bit, my Lord, about the background to this case so that you can get a feel for it.
MR. JUSTICE GARLAND: Yes, I have managed to read the bundle.
That is most helpful. I am grateful for that. I have got the original brochures that are concerned in this case if you need to look at that. I think the colour photocopy is at the back of the brochure.
MR. JUSTICE GARLAND: Those are the face pages.
What's the significance, my Lord, here is whether or not we may have made any allowance for the possibility that we might lose the case. The answer is that we haven't. This is a settlement on full liability and we have indicated to the local authority that we didn't give a ha'penny discount for the prospect that we might lose the litigation.
That's notwithstanding the fact that this is, I think, one of the first cases where the breach of confidence and so called right of privacy under the Human Rights Act has actually come to trial. Most of the reported cases on this have been interlocutory matters. This is one that has now come to trial and as my Lord remembers the cause of action in breach of confidence is a cause of action ( Inaudible) has traditionally arisen in the commercial context and typically the applications have been for injunctions to prevent the genie getting out of the bottle. So the court has not developed a significant body of juris prudence regarding the qualification of damages so far as breach of confidence is concerned and there is much academic discussion on the availability of a remedy at all. Speculation over the years has ranged from the availability of equitable compensation on the one hand, on the other hand, particularly in this corridor of the High Court, the availability of restitution as a remedy. It is now widely accepted amongst academic commentators that damages are available for breach of confidence and, as recently as last term, Mr. Justice Morland in the case of Cornelius v de Tranto did hold that damages were available for breach of confidence in a contractual context. He specifically left open the question as to whether they were recoverable in the general area of breach of confidence.
As I say, the consensus of academic opinion is, unsurprisingly, that they are recoverable. The question is how much. There is not, as I said, a developed juris prudence in relation to that. That explains really the figure which might otherwise seem a little bit arbitrary. What I would like to emphasise to my Lord is that this is not a person injury case.
MR. JUSTICE GARLAND: Nor is it a commercial exploitation case.
Exactly. My Lord will want to know that from the outset the advice given to the claimant was that this wasn't a big money case. Indeed, we wrote to the local authority in exactly those terms and indicated that this was not a claim brought on the basis that we hoped to claim massive damages. What was required here, firstly, was a cessation of use, because, obviously, it has been distressing for the family; they promise not to do it again; they say sorry, if they can bring themselves to do that, and, secondly they make some payment, substantial but not massive, sufficient to acknowledge that.
If my Lord turns to page 92 of the bundle.
MR. JUSTICE GARLAND: Is this the HIV/AIDS ones?
This is one of the more recent ones. In the context of a girl attending a nursery, photographs being taken of her without parental consent, those photographs then being kept and stored, again without parental content or knowledge, and subsequently being used, albeit without any malicious intent, again, equally without parental consent, to illustrate brochures advertising the services offered by the London Borough of Newham with titles such as, "The Strategy for Children and any Young People who are Affected or Infected by HIV or AIDS" and "Strategy for Preventing Youth Crime." The concern of the family was that this girl's photograph, without their permission, was plastered on the front of the brochures that were circulated in her...
To continue reading
Request your trial