Kaye v Robertson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 March 1990 |
| Date | 16 March 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Before Lord Justice Glidewell, Lord Justice Bingham and Lord Justice Leggatt
Court of Appeal
Libel - malicious falsehood - right to privacy
In English law there was no right to privacy and accordingly there was no right of action for breach of a person's privacy.
The facts of the instant case were graphic illustration of the desirability of Parliament considering whether and in what circumstances statutory provision could be made to protect the privacy of individuals.
The Court of Appeal so stated in giving reasons for their decision on February 23, 1990 to allow in part an appeal by the defendants, Mr Andrew Robertson and Sport Newspapers Ltd, the editor and the publishers of Sunday Sport, against an injunction granted by Mr Justice Potter on February 16 to Mr Gorden Kaye, by his next friend, Mr Peter Froggatt, restraining the defendants, inter alia, from publishing any photographs of Mr Kaye or any statement made him in the presence of any servant or agent of the second defendants at Charing Cross Hospital on February 13, or any summary or record thereof until trial or further order.
The court substituted an order that the defendants be restrained until trial or further order whether by themselves their servants or agents from publishing causing to be published or permitting to be published anything which could be reasonably understood or convey to any person reading or looking at the defendants' Sunday Sport newspaper that the plaintiff had voluntarily permitted any photographs to be taken for publication in that newspaper or had voluntarily permitted representatives of the defendants to interview him while a patient in the Charing Cross Hospital undergoing treatment. The rest of the order made by Mr Justice
Potter was discharged.
Mr Patrick Milmo, QC and Mr Andrew Monson for the defendants; Mr Andrew Caldecott for Mr Kaye.
LORD JUSTICE GLIDEWELL said that the plaintiff was the well-known actor, Mr Gorden Kaye, the star of a popular television comedy series. Since he was at present incapable of managing his own affairs, in the action Mr Froggatt was his next friend.
On January 25, 1990 Mr Kaye had been driving his car in London during a gale when a piece of wood smashed through his windscreen. As a result he suffered severe injuries to his head and brain.
He was taken to Charing Cross Hospital where he was on a life support system for three days. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Doree Industries (M) Sdn Bhd and Others v Sri Ram & Company (Sued as A Firm) and Others
- Khorasandjian v Bush
-
Niche Products Ltd v MacDermid Offshore Solutions LLC
...makes no sense otherwise. The law 12 The four essential constituents of the tort of malicious falsehood were set out by Glidewell LJ in Kay v Robertson [1991] FSR 67 as follows: "The essentials of this tort are that the defendant has [1] published about the plaintiff, [2] words which are fa......
-
Challenger Technologies v Dennison Transoceanic Corporation
...about Challenger that were false and special damage has followed as a direct and natural result of the publication (see Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62 per Glidewell LJ at p 67).The specific instances of malicious falsehood that the plaintiffs rely on are the words of Liew in the complaint s......
-
REVISITING THE LAW OF CONFIDENCE IN SINGAPORE AND A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW TORT OF MISUSE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION
...in the case law, see n 142 above. 178 See Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41 at 50. 179 Facts adapted from Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62. See also Tom Bingham, “Should There Be a Law to Protect Rights of Personal Privacy?” (1996) European Human Rights L Rev 455 at 457: It has a......
-
Table of Cases
...January 1996), CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Jones v DPP [1962] AC 635. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62. . . . . . . . . . . . 208Khan v United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 45 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203,......
-
If 'Mum' is the Word, is it the Law? Irish Privacy Law: A Comparative Perspective
...‘Beyond Breach of Confidence: an Irish eye on English and Scottish privacy law’ (2014) 1 Jur Rev 27, 32. 90 Douglas (n 85) [1000-1]. 91 [1991] FSR 62. 92 ibid 1012. 2017] Irish Privacy Law: A Comparative Perspective 79 The case concerned media revelations about Naomi Campbell’s addiction to......
-
WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SINGAPORE: THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
...Davey v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1988] NILR 139. 69 Re X (A Minor) [1975] 1 All ER 697 at 704; Kaye v Robertson[1991] FSR 62 at 66 (CA): “It is well-known that in English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right of action for a breach of a......