Campbell v Frisbee [2002] EWHC 328 (Ch) (14th March, 2002)

Campbell v Frisbee [2002] EWHC 328 (Ch) (14th March, 2002)

A contractual obligation of confidentiality in a contract for services is not discharged by a repudiatory breach by the client; such obligations survive and are enforceable. The public interest defence does not justify disclosure of private, titillating information about a public figure's personal life where there is no pressing need for the public to know, and the right to privacy and confidentiality prevails over freedom of expression in these circumstances.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 328 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Naomi Campbell; Defendant/appellant: Vanessa Frisbee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment (high Court, Chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for the Claimant on the issue of disclosure of personal life information upheld.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Confidentiality Agreements, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Public Interest Defence, Summary Judgment, Contracts for Services
Contract Law Equity Media Law Human Rights Breach of Confidence Confidentiality Agreements Freedom of Expression Privacy +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naomi Campbell

Claimant/respondent

Vanessa Frisbee

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment (high Court, Chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a repudiatory breach of a contract for services discharges obligations of confidentiality
  2. 2 Whether public interest or freedom of expression justifies disclosure of confidential information about a public figure's private life

Ratio Decidendi

A contractual obligation of confidentiality in a contract for services is not discharged by a repudiatory breach by the client; such obligations survive and are enforceable. The public interest defence does not justify disclosure of private, titillating information about a public figure's personal life where there is no pressing need for the public to know, and the right to privacy and confidentiality prevails over freedom of expression in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for the Claimant on the issue of disclosure of personal life information upheld.

Orders

  • Defendant's appeal dismissed
  • Summary judgment for Claimant in respect of disclosure of information relating to Claimant's personal life