Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Eady,THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE EADY |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB),[2008] EWHC 2341 (QB),[2008] EWHC 687 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ08X01303,****,Case No: (None) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 24 July 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE EADY
Case No: HQ08X01303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
James Price QC and David Sherborne (instructed by Steeles) for the Claimant
Mark Warby QC and Anthony Hudson (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 7–10 & 14 July 2008
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
The nature of the claim
1. The claimant in this litigation is Mr Max Mosley, who has been President of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (“FIA”) since 1993 and is a trustee of its charitable arm, the FIA Foundation. He sues News Group Newspapers Ltd as publishers of the News of the World, complaining of an article by Neville Thurlbeck in the issue for 30 March 2008 under the heading “F1 BOSS HAS SICK NAZI ORGY WITH 5 HOOKERS”. It was claimed as an “EXCLUSIVE” and was accompanied by the subheading “Son of Hitler-loving fascist in sex shame”. It concerned an event which took place on 28 March, described variously as a “party” (by the Claimant and his witnesses) and “an orgy” (by the Defendant). He also complains of accompanying images published alongside the article.
2. He sues additionally over the same information and images on the newspaper's website, which also contained video footage relating to the same event. Reference is also made to a “follow up article” contained in the issue of 6 April headed “EXCLUSIVE: MOSLEY HOOKER TELLS ALL: MY NAZI ORGY WITH F1 BOSS”. This consisted primarily of a purported interview with one of the women who had been present at the event in question and had filmed what took place clandestinely with a camera concealed in her clothing, which had been supplied by the News of the World. It is relied upon primarily in the context of aggravation of damages and in support of a claim for exemplary damages.
3. The cause of action is breach of confidence and/or the unauthorised disclosure of personal information, said to infringe the Claimant's rights of privacy as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). There is no claim in defamation and I am thus not directly concerned with any injury to reputation.
4. It is argued not only that the content of the published material was inherently private in nature, consisting as it did of the portrayal of sado-masochistic (“S and M”) and some sexual activities, but that there had also been a pre-existing relationship of confidentiality between the participants. They had all known each other for some time and took part in such activities on the understanding that they would be private and that none of them would reveal what had taken place. I was told that there is a fairly tight-knit community of S and M activists on what is known as “the scene” and that it is an unwritten rule that people are trusted not to reveal what has gone on. That is hardly surprising. (It is apparently more common nowadays to refer to “BDSM”, a term which embraces bondage, discipline, domination and submission or sado-masochistic practices, but I shall continue to use the more familiar “S and M” for convenience.)
5. It is alleged against the woman in question (known as “Woman E”) that she breached that trust and that the journalist concerned must have appreciated that she was doing so. That could not in reality be disputed, since the whole object of supplying her with a concealed camera, and instructing her how to use it, was to ensure that she could record the events without being suspected by her fellow participants.
6. Against that background, it is clear that the present claim is partly founded, as in McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73, upon “… old-fashioned breach of confidence by way of conduct inconsistent with a pre-existing relationship, rather than simply of the purloining of private information”: see e.g. ibid at [8], per Buxton LJ.
The “new methodology”
7. Although the law of “old-fashioned breach of confidence” has been well established for many years, and derives historically from equitable principles, these have been extended in recent years under the stimulus of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the content of the Convention itself. The law now affords protection to information in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, even in circumstances where there is no pre-existing relationship giving rise of itself to an enforceable duty of confidence. That is because the law is concerned to prevent the violation of a citizen's autonomy, dignity and self-esteem. It is not simply a matter of “unaccountable” judges running amok. Parliament enacted the 1998 statute which requires these values to be acknowledged and enforced by the courts. In any event, the courts had been increasingly taking them into account because of the need to interpret domestic law consistently with the United Kingdom's international obligations. It will be recalled that the United Kingdom government signed up to the Convention more than 50 years ago.
8. The relevant values are expressed in Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, which are in these terms:
“Article 8
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10
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 and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
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, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
9. It was recognised in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 that these values are as much applicable in disputes between individuals, or between an individual and a non-governmental body such as a newspaper, as they are in disputes between individuals and a public authority: see e.g. Lord Nicholls at [17]-[18] and Lord Hoffmann at [50]. Indeed, “… in order to find the rules of the English law of breach of confidence we now have to look in the jurisprudence of articles 8 and 10”: per Buxton LJ in McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73 at [11].
10. If the first hurdle can be overcome, by demonstrating a reasonable expectation of privacy, it is now clear that the court is required to carry out the next step of weighing the relevant competing Convention rights in the light of an “intense focus” upon the individual facts of the case: see e.g. Campbell and Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593. It was expressly recognised that no one Convention right takes automatic precedence over another. In the present context, for example, it has to be accepted that any rights of free expression, as protected by Article 10, whether on the part of Woman E or the journalists working for the News of the World, must no longer be regarded as simply “trumping” any privacy rights that may be established on the part of the Claimant. Language of that kind is no longer used. Nor can it be said, without qualification, that there is a “public interest that the truth should out”: cf. Fraser v Evans [1969] 1 QB 349, 360F-G, per Lord Denning MR.
11. In order to determine which should take precedence, in the particular circumstances, it is necessary to examine the facts closely as revealed in the evidence at trial and to decide whether (assuming a reasonable expectation of privacy to have been established) some countervailing consideration of public interest may be said to justify any intrusion which has taken place. This is integral to what has been called “the new methodology”: Re S (A Child) at [23].
12. This modern approach of applying an “intense focus” is thus obviously incompatible with making broad generalisations of the kind to which the media often resorted in the past such as, for example, “Public figures must expect to have less privacy” or “People in positions of responsibility must be seen as ‘role models’ and set us all an example of how to live upstanding lives”. Sometimes factors of this kind may have a legitimate role to play when the “ultimate balancing exercise” comes to be carried out, but generalisations can never be determinative. In every case “it all depends” (i.e. upon what is revealed by the intense focus on the individual circumstances).
13. The exercise is sometimes still described, in terminology used by Lord Goff in the Spycatcher litigation, as determining whether any “limiting principles” come into play: see Att.-Gen. v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109, 282B-F:
“ … The first limiting principle (which is rather an expression of the scope of the duty) is highly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peter Abbey v (1) Andrew Gilligan (2) Associated Newspapers Ltd
...included that covered by legal professional privilege). The information relating to sexual activities which was the subject of Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EMLR 20 is very different, as is well known. Mr Bennett also cited the observations on the need for an effective remedy th......
-
Danville Walker v Contractor-General
...of reporting, Mrs. Justice King said at [88] of her judgment, quoted with approval from [34], [36] of the judgment of Eady J, in Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] All ER (D) 135 (Apr); [2008] EWHC 687 (QB): [34] …. if someone wishes to search on the Internet for the content of the edit......
-
Henderson v Walker
...wedding by Hello! magazine in circumstances where OK! magazine had exclusive rights to take photographs at the wedding. 110 (g) Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd — a decision where the High Court of England and Wales awarded £60,000 for breach of confidence involving the publication of two......
-
Driver v Radio New Zealand Ltd
...a mixture of true and false private facts. An example from the United Kingdom that bears some analogy to the present case is Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd, where the News of the World published an article concerning a sadomasochistic orgy, falsely suggesting it was Nazi-themed. 138 I a......
-
The Development Of Privacy Torts in Ontario - A Case Comment On Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32
...Torts Reports 81‐ 706. 6 Campbell v. MGN Ltd. [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 A.C. 467 at para. 51. 7 Mosely v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. [2008] EWHC 1777 (Q.B.) at para. 8 Hosking v. Runting, [2004] NZCA 34 at para. 109. About Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC) FMC is one of Canada's leading busin......
-
The Development Of Privacy Torts In Ontario: A Case Comment
...Australian Torts Reports 81-706. Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 467 at para 51. Mosely v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) at para Hosking v Runting, [2004] NZCA 34 at para 109. About Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC) FMC is one of Canada's leading business and ......
-
Data Breach Class Actions in Australia
...[1968] F.S.R. 415, 419; Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax & Sons (1980) 147 CLR 39, 51. 17 Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) (2008); Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (1990) 1 AC 109; Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 (18 May 2005). The A......
-
REVISITING THE LAW OF CONFIDENCE IN SINGAPORE AND A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW TORT OF MISUSE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION
...QB 195; Associated Newspapers Ltd v HRH Prince of Wales [2006] EWCA Civ 1776; [2007] 2 All ER 139; Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB); White v Withers LLP [2009] EWCA Civ 1122; Imerman v Tchenguiz [2010] EWCA Civ 908; [2011] 2 WLR 592; ANB v ANC [2015] 5 SLR 522; ZXC v......
-
PRE-COMMENCEMENT DISCOVERY AND THE ODEX LITIGATION: COPYRIGHT VERSUS CONFIDENTIALITY OR IS IT PRIVACY?
...TASSC 114 at para 18. 24 A v B [2002] 1 All ER 449. 25 Theakston v MGN [2002] EMLR 22. See also Max Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd[2008] EWHC 1777. 26 Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers [2007] 3 WLR 289. 27 LQR 2000 116 (October) 621. 28 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects ......
-
Table of Cases
...Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077 .............................................. .208 Mosley v. News Group Newspapers Ltd., [2008] EWHC 2341 (QB)....................... 373, 400, 401 Mosley v. News Group, [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) ..............................................377, 378, 38......
-
Invasion of Privacy/Misuse of Private Information
...also Jameel (Mohammed) v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 AC 359 at para. 147. See also Mosley v. Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd., [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) for a lengthy discussion of the law relating to intrusive nature of photography at paras. 16–23. A further lucid summary of the law is f......