A v B Plc and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment Date11 Mar 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] EWCA Civ 337
Docket NumberCase No: A2/2001/2086

[2002] EWCA Civ 337

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

(MR JUSTICE JACK)

Before

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales

Lord Justice Laws and

Lord Justice Dyson

Case No: A2/2001/2086

Between
A
Appellant
and
B & C
Respondents

Mr richard spearmAN QC (instructed by Marcus Partington, Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Appellant

MR ALASTAIR WILSON QC, MR STEPHEN BATE AND MR JEREMY REED (instructed by George Davis Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the First Respondents

The Second Respondent did not appear and was not represented

Lord Woolf CJ: This is the judgment of the Court

THE BACKGROUND

1

The case involves two linked appeals. They relate to four interim judgments which Jack J gave in the same proceedings. The substantive appeal is against the fourth judgment of 10 September 2001 which granted A an interim injunction against B and C. That injunction had been previously granted on 27 April 2001 in different terms by Jack J for reasons which he set out in his first judgment of 30 April 2001. The second appeal is an appeal against the third judgment of Jack J. The third judgment was given on 5 July 2001. That decision reversed his second judgment of 20 June 2001 which had discharged the injunction which Jack J had originally granted on 27 April 2001.

2

A is a footballer with a premier division football club. B is a national newspaper. C is one of two women with whom A, who is a married man, had affairs. The injunction was granted to restrain B from publishing the stories which C and the other woman, D, had sold to B recounting their affairs with A. In using initials to describe the parties we are following the course adopted in the court below to protect the identity of A. D has taken no part in the proceedings.

3

Since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 ("the 1998 Act") there has been an increase in the number of actions in which injunctions are being sought to protect the claimants from the publication of articles in newspapers on the grounds that the articles contain confidential information concerning the claimants, the publication of which, it is alleged, would infringe their privacy. Such actions can be against any part of the media.

4

The applications for interim injunctions have now to be considered in the context of articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights ("ECHR"). These articles have provided new parameters within which the court will decide, in an action for breach of confidence, whether a person is entitled to have his privacy protected by the court or whether the restriction of freedom of expression which such protection involves cannot be justified. The court's approach to the issues which the applications raise has been modified because under section 6 of the 1998 Act, the court, as a public authority, is required not to act "in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right". The court is able to achieve this by absorbing the rights which articles 8 and 10 protect into the long-established action for breach of confidence. This involves giving a new strength and breadth to the action so that it accommodates the requirements of those articles.

5

The court is assisted in achieving this because the equitable origins of the action for breach of confidence mean that historically the remedy for breach of confidence will only be granted when it is equitable for this to happen. As the headnote makes clear, in Argyll v Argyll [1967] Ch 302 Ungoed-Thomas J decided that "a contract or obligation of confidence need not be express, but could be implied, and a breach of contract or trust or faith could arise independently of any right to property or contract (other than any contract which the imparting of the confidence might itself create); and that the court in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction would restrain a breach of confidence independently of any right at law". In Stephens v Avery [1988] 1 Ch 449, Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C made it clear that this approach could be extended to other relationships apart from that between husband and wife, though it would not necessarily apply in the same way.

6

The manner in which the two articles operate is entirely different. Article 8 operates so as to extend the areas in which an action for breach of confidence can provide protection for privacy. It requires a generous approach to the situations in which privacy is to be protected. Article 10 operates in the opposite direction. This is because it protects freedom of expression and to achieve this it is necessary to restrict the area in which remedies are available for breaches of confidence. There is a tension between the two articles which requires the court to hold the balance between the conflicting interests they are designed to protect. This is not an easy task but it can be achieved by the courts if, when holding the balance, they attach proper weight to the important rights both articles are designed to protect. Each article is qualified expressly in a way which allows the interests under the other article to be taken into account.

7

Actions for breach of confidence are usually brought at short notice and are followed by an immediate application for an interim injunction (as happened here) which has to be heard urgently without adequate time either for preparation or for the hearing of the application. If an interim injunction is to be granted it is essential that it is granted promptly because otherwise the newspaper will be published and then, from the claimant's point of view, the damage will have been done. Notwithstanding these constraints of time, the applications for injunctions in this class of action are frequently marked by the citation of very large numbers of authorities which the unfortunate judge has to do his best to digest prior to announcing his decision as to where the balance falls in the particular case.

8

In the present appeals the parties have placed before us three lever arch files of authorities. In addition, during the course of the hearing we were handed a number of other domestic and Strasbourg decisions. Finally we have another file which contains what was described as "Press Complaints Commission Material", which includes 17 decisions of the Press Complaints Commission, as well as the Code of Practice of the Commission and a further judgment. It is understandable that, in what is a developing area of the law, citation of authority is necessary, but we would hope that the law has now, at least at the level below the House of Lords, become sufficiently clear to make the citation of authority on this scale unnecessary. This comment is not to be understood as a criticism of the counsel appearing before us on these appeals. They were seeking guidance as to the proper approach to the granting of injunctions in this sort of action. We do, however, hope that as a result of our decision the citation of authorities on this scale will be regarded as unnecessary and not accepted by judges of first instance who have to hear these applications. This action on the part of judges is necessary and part of their responsibilities because of the overriding objective to deal with cases justly in accordance with CPR Part 1.1 (2). The need for control of the excessive citation of authority should be borne in mind in deciding questions of costs since it leads to disproportionate expense which can in turn make litigation beyond the means of the ordinary person.

9

The authorities largely fall into two categories. The first category consists of the decisions of the Strasbourg Court on articles 8 and 10. These decisions are valuable sources of the principles which the articles embrace. The decisions do however tend to repeat the same principles in successive cases in order to apply them to different situations. The citation of a single case may therefore be all that is required. The application of the principles to the facts of a particular situation is largely unhelpful because that is primarily the task of the domestic court. The other category of cases are decisions given in this jurisdiction. If they are authorities which relate to the action for breach of confidence prior to the coming into force of the 1998 Act then they are largely of historic interest only.

10

The citation of authorities on the present scale adds hugely to the costs of litigation which is already inevitably high. It also creates huge problems for the judges hearing the applications, particularly in view of the urgency with which they have to be dealt. In order to assist the parties we now set out guidelines which are intended to assist the judiciary and the parties to deal with the majority of these applications in a more proportionate manner.

THE GUIDELINES

11

We suggest that if judges direct themselves in accordance with the following paragraphs in many cases they will not need to be burdened by copious reference to other authorities:

i) The consideration of this type of application should generally begin with recognition that what is being considered is an interim application for an injunction. This means that whether any injunction is granted at all is a matter of discretion for the judge, to be exercised in accordance with what are now well-established principles which include the need to establish, as we will explain later, that after a trial it is likely that an injunction would be granted after a substantive hearing, while recognising that the grant or refusal of an interim injunction could well determine the outcome of the entire proceedings.

ii) The fact that the injunction...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 cases
  • Herrity v Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 July 2008
    ...v HOME OFFICE 2004 2 AC 406 MAHON v POST PUBLICATIONS LTD 2007 2 ILRM 1 M v DRURY 1994 2 IR 8 1995 1 ILRM 108 A v B PLC & ANOR 2003 QB 195 MCGEE v AG 1974 IR 284 CRIMINAL LAW (AMDT) ACT 1935 S17 CRIMINAL LAW (AMDT) ACT 1935 S17(3) CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1 NORRIS v AG 1984 IR 36 CONSTIT......
  • Michael Douglas and Another v Hello! Ltd and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 11 April 2003
    ...Group Newspapers Ltd and others [2001] 1 All E.R. 908, a judgment delivered on the 8 th January 2001 by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P.; A –v—B [2002] 3 W.L.R. 542 C.A, a judgment delivered on the 11 th March 2002 and Campbell-v—MGN [2002] E.W.C.A. Civ1373; a judgment delivered on the 14 th ......
  • Toh See Wei v Teddric Jon Mohr and Another
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Toh See Wei v Teddric Jon Mohr and Another
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • Scope for damages for data protection violations in the UK widened by the Court of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 28 April 2015
    ...1) Vidal-Hall and others v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311 2) Douglas v Hello! (No 3) [2003] EWHC 55 (Ch); [2003] EMLR 60 3) A v B plc [2002] EWCA Civ 337; [2003] QB 195. 4) Article 8 ensuring the right to privacy; Article 10 ensuring the right to freedom of expression. 5) Campbell v MGN [20......
  • Whipping Up A Tort: Actions Based On Privacy
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 15 May 2007
    ...992; [2001] 2 All ER 289 at 320. Campbell v MGN Limited [2004] UKHL 22. Lord Hope of Craighead at 125. See Lord Woolf CJ in A v B plc [2002] EWCA Civ 337, [2003] QB 195, 202 at 4: "[Articles 8 and 10] have provided new parameters within which the court will decide, in an action for bre......
  • Privacy Law: Acquiring 'Real Taste, Real Body'
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 15 November 2002
    ...- Advocates should be discouraged from relying on individual decisions of the PCC. 1 A-v-B&C (Flitcroft -v- MGN Ltd and Another) [2002] EWCA (Civ) 337 2 Campbell -v- MGN Ltd [2002] EWHC 499 (QB) 3 Theakston -v- MGN Ltd (June 2002, Unreported) 4 Douglas -v- Hello! Limited [2001] 2WLR 992......
  • Privacy v. Freedom of Expression - the Right to Privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 20 May 2002
    ...affairs with two women, on the basis that it was an unjustified interference with the freedom of the press (A v B & C [2002] EWCA Civ 337). The Court noted Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR ìprovided new parameters within which the court will decide, in an action for breach of confidence, w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 books & journal articles
  • Horizontal Effect and the Constitutional Constraint
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 74-6, November 2011
    • 1 November 2011
    ...here, too.172 This view also finds favour in academic writing: see eg Beyleveld and Pattinson, n 3 above,644;Raphael, n 165 above, 506.173 [2003] QB 195 at [9].174 Venablesand Thompson vNews Group Newspapers [2001] 1All ER 908, 916 at [100].Weare indebtedto Raphael for this example.175 One e......
  • Accommodating Children's Rights in a Post Human Rights Act Era
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 69-3, May 2006
    • 1 May 2006
    ...tuations where chi ldren’s rights, once articulated, very obviously con£ict36 Per Lord Woolf CJ in AvB PLC and another[2002] EWCACiv 337 [2003] QB195 at [4]. See alsoLord Nicholls of Birkenhead in CampbellvMG N Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 [2004] 2 AC 457 at [17].‘The timehas come to recognise that t......
  • A Potential Framework For Privacy? A Reply To Hello!
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 69-5, September 2006
    • 1 September 2006
    ...NewspapersLtd [1984] 1WLR 892 (CA) (information obtained via a tele-phone tap con¢dential).62 As explicitly noted in, eg, AvBPlc[2003]QB 195at [11, (ix)].Rachael Mulheron687rThe Modern LawReview Limited 2006(2006) 69(5)MLR edge) may be satis¢ed through the use o f signs,63bydirections or by......
  • Transforming Breach of Confidence? Towards a Common Law Right of Privacy under the Human Rights Act
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 66-5, September 2003
    • 1 September 2003
    ...[2002] EMLR 22.16 n 2 above.17 Ibid, 997.18 [2003] EWHC 786 (Ch), 11 April 2003. This decision will be referred to as ‘Douglas II’.19 [2002] 3 WLR 542. All references to ‘AvB plc’ are to this judgment, unless otherwise stated.20 The judgment of 30 April 2001 in which the initial injunction ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT