Woodward v Hutchins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE LAWTON,LORD JUSTICE BRIDGE |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1977 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1977] EWCA Civ J0419-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 1977 W. NO. 1357 |
| Date | 19 April 1977 |
[1977] EWCA Civ J0419-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from the High Court Of Justice Queen's Bench Division
(Mr. Justice Slyn)
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Lawton and
Lord Justice Bridge
SIR PETER RAWLINSON, Q.C. and MR. L. BRITTAN (instructed by Messrs Balin & Co., Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs (Respondents).
MR. R. ALEXANDER, Q.C, and MR. J. PHILLIPS (instructed by Messrs. Nicholson, Graham & Jones Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Defendants (Appellants).
We need not trouble you, Mr. Alexander. There is a group of pop stars who go by the professional names of Tom Jones, Engelbert Humperdinck, Gilbert O'Sullivan and Gordon Mills. They conduct their business through a management company. In 1970 they employed Christopher Hutchins to act as public-relations officer and consultant, press representative and literary agent for them. They paid him a salary of £12,000 a year. He went on tour with them and saw all their doings. As their press agent, it was for him to see that they received favourable publicity and that their activities were shown to the public in the best light.
In June 1972 the management company got the members of their staff to sign letters in a common form promising not to disclose information about the group to outsiders. Each promised not "to make any statement or give any interview or pass any information to any third party touching or concerning" the principals in the group, either during the employment or at any time afterwards. Mr. Hutchins was asked to sign such a letter when they were on tour in America. He signed it, as did the others. He signed it, he says, because he was told he could not continue on the tour unless he did. But he says that, on returning to England, he took the matter up with the managing director of the management company and asked to be released from the obligations imposed by the letter. Mr. Hutchins said that the managing director agreed and handed back the letter. Mr. Hutchins goes on to say: 'I tore it up in his presence and I still retain the pieces of paper. The said pieces of paper are now produced and shown to me" and he exhibits those torn pieces. They have been shown to us. In consequence Mr. Hutchins says that the promise was rescinded and that he is no longer bound by it,
In January 1976 the employment of Mr. Hutchins came to anend. It was done quite amicably. But since the parting, it appears that Mr. Hutchins has approached the "Daily Mirror" newspaper and, no doubt, for a very considerable reward, has given that newspaper much information - not hitherto disclosed - about the lives of Mr. Tom Jones and the members of the group. He has written articles for that newspaper in which he tells "secrets" about the group.
The first article came out last Saturday, 16th April. It was headed: "Why Mrs. Tom Jones threw her jewellery from a car-window and Tom got high in a Jumbo jet". It goes on to give a description of a very unsavoury incident in a Jumbo Jet, Mr. Tom Jones is said to have become inebriated and to have behaved outrageously on the aircraft.
Then on Monday, 18th April, 1977, the "Daily Mirror" came out with the headline: "Tom Jones and Marjorie" - that is the name of a woman called Marjorie Wallace - "The truth! Starts today the most explosive show-business story of the decade. The Family by Chris Hutchins, the man on the inside. I lived it. I'm telling it'". The article gives a long description of what is called "The Marji Wallace Affair. Enter a Sexy Lady" - with a photograph of them kissing one another.
Now this morning, 19th April, 1977, there is an article on the first page: "Tom Jones's Superstud. More Startling Secrets of The Family by Chris Hutchins", together with an account of many more discreditable incidents in which members of the group were concerned.
These articles have produced a swift reaction. Today Tom Jones and others of the group have issued a writ seeking an injunction to restrain the further publication of the series. This afternoon, after a hearing for two hours from 2.15 p.m. to 4.20 p.m., Mr. Justice Slynn has granted an injunction. The newspaper appeals to this Court, and we have heard it from4.30 to 6.30 p.m. The reason for the urgency is "because the newspaper wishes to publish the next article tomorrow morning, The case requires consideration of three possible causes of action: Libel, Breach of Contract and Breach of Confidential Information.
So far as libel is concerned, the "Daily Mirror" and Mr. Hutchins, intimate that they are going to plead justification. They are going to say that the words in the article are true in substance and in fact. In these circumstances it is clear that no injunction would be granted to restrain the publication. These Courts rarely, if ever, grant an injunction when a defendant says he is going to justify. The reason is because the interest of the public in knowing the truth outweighs the interest of a plaintiff in maintaining his reputation.
So far as the cause of action for breach of contract is concerned, it is based on the letter in 1972 which I have read. Even if that letter still stood, I doubt whether the promise in it would be enforced. A serious question would arise as to whether it was reasonable to impose such a fetter on freedom of speech. But I need not pursue the point. On the evidence as it stands at the moment, as to the tearing up of the letter, it is a permissible view that that promise was rescinded. So no injunction should be granted on that ground.
The remaining cause of action is for breach of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKennitt v Ash
...The principal of these are the concept of "shared experience"; and the effect and authority of the decision of this court in Woodward v Hutchins [1977] 1 WLR 760. I shall also need to say something about the recent decision of the ECtHR in Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1; and the im......
-
National Irish Bank Ltd v Raidió Teilifís Éireann
...20Those misgivings may have been prompted by a wide ranging formulation of the principle by Lord Denning MR in Woodward v. Hutchins [1977] 2 All ER 751, where he defined it as:- "A question of balancing the public interest in maintaining the confidence against the public interest in knowing......
-
Hickey & Agnew (A Minor) v Sunday Newspapers Ltd
...& TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ACT 1983 S98 INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL & POLITICAL RIGHTS ART 17 WOODWARD & ORS v HUTCHINS & ORS 1977 1 WLR 760 1977 2 AER 751 LENNON v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD & TWIST 1978 FSR 573 MILMO & RODGERS GATLEY ON LIBEL & SLANDER 11ED 2008 PARA 3.29 CONSTITUTI......
- Cambridge Nutrition Ltd v British Broadcasting Corporation
-
PRE-COMMENCEMENT DISCOVERY AND THE ODEX LITIGATION: COPYRIGHT VERSUS CONFIDENTIALITY OR IS IT PRIVACY?
...it will be even more important now to balance that right against public interests that may support disclosure. 23 Woodward v Hutchins [1977] 1 WLR 760, [1977] 2 All ER 751. Perhaps this case represents an extreme application of the public interest defence? There are those who would argue th......
-
EFFECTIVELY PROTECTING PRIVATE FACTS
...plc and Big Pictures (UK) Ltd[2008] EWCA Civ 446 (family shopping trip in the High Street). 58 In the UK see Woodward v Hutchins[1977] 2 All ER 751 at 754, per Lord Denning MR (well-known pop stars): There is no doubt that this pop group sought publicity. They wanted to have themselves pres......
-
MILKY WAY AND ANDROMEDA: PRIVACY, CONFIDENTIALITY AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
...private family scenes). Other examples are Lennon v News Group Newspapers Ltd[1978] FSR 573 (marital confidences), Woodward v Hutchins[1977] 1 WLR 760 (conduct of pop stars) and Stephens v Avery[1988] Ch 449 (sexual information). It would not be right to assume that with all the recent conc......
-
A tort of invasion of privacy in Australia?
...Ltd v Littler [1969] 2 QB 375, 391 (Lord Denning MR). (299) Lennon v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1978] FSR 573. (300) Woodward v Hutchins [1977] 1 WLR 760. (301) Cf Ettingshausen v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Hunt CJ at CL, 11 March 1993).......