McKennitt & Ors v Ash & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 778 (25 May 2006)

McKennitt & Ors v Ash & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 778 (25 May 2006)

Permission to appeal is granted on grounds 1 to 5, as the issues raised are interrelated and merit substantive consideration by the Court of Appeal, particularly regarding the balance between privacy and freedom of expression, the public interest defence, and the use of privacy claims for allegedly false material. Permission is refused on ground 6, as Miss Ash's prior legal representation and the conduct of the trial did not render it unfair or in breach of Article 6.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 778
Parties
Claimants/respondents: Loreena McKennitt & Ors; Defendants/appellants: Niema Ash & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Right to Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Public Interest Defence, Fair Trial Under Article 6
Privacy Law Media Law Civil Procedure Breach of Confidence Right to Privacy Freedom of Expression Public Interest Defence Fair Trial Under Article 6

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loreena McKennitt & Ors

Claimants/respondents

Niema Ash & Anr

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge struck the correct balance between Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights
  2. 2 Whether the judge properly considered the public interest defence in light of A v B Plc [2003] QB 195
  3. 3 Whether Woodward v Hutchins [1977] 1 WLR 760 remains good law and its applicability

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted on grounds 1 to 5, as the issues raised are interrelated and merit substantive consideration by the Court of Appeal, particularly regarding the balance between privacy and freedom of expression, the public interest defence, and the use of privacy claims for allegedly false material. Permission is refused on ground 6, as Miss Ash's prior legal representation and the conduct of the trial did not render it unfair or in breach of Article 6.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on grounds 1 to 5 inclusive
  • Permission to appeal refused on ground 6