Browne v Associated Newspapers Ltd Rev 1 [2007] EWCA Civ 295 (03 April 2007)

Browne v Associated Newspapers Ltd Rev 1 [2007] EWCA Civ 295 (03 April 2007)

The claimant was not entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining publication of information relating to the alleged misuse of BP's resources, the bare fact of the relationship with JC, or the alleged breach of confidentiality in discussing BP matters with JC, because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of those matters, or, even if he did, he had not shown that he was likely to succeed at trial in restraining publication, given the public interest in disclosure and the balancing of Articles 8 and 10 ECHR.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 295
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Lord Browne of Madingley; Defendant/respondent: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction in Breach of Confidence Proceedings / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of items b), c), and d); injunction not restored to original wide terms; permission to appeal granted but appeal failed on the merits.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Balancing Articles 8 and 10 ECHR
Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Law Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Reasonable Expectation of Privacy +1 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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lord Browne of Madingley

Claimant/appellant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction in Breach of Confidence Proceedings / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining publication of information by the defendant newspaper on grounds of breach of confidence and privacy
  2. 2 Whether the information in question attracts a reasonable expectation of privacy under Article 8 ECHR
  3. 3 How to balance the claimant's Article 8 rights against the defendant's Article 10 rights to freedom of expression

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining publication of information relating to the alleged misuse of BP's resources, the bare fact of the relationship with JC, or the alleged breach of confidentiality in discussing BP matters with JC, because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of those matters, or, even if he did, he had not shown that he was likely to succeed at trial in restraining publication, given the public interest in disclosure and the balancing of Articles 8 and 10 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of items b), c), and d); injunction not restored to original wide terms; permission to appeal granted but appeal failed on the merits.

Orders

  • The injunction restraining publication of information relating to the alleged misuse of BP resources, the bare fact of the relationship, and the alleged breach of confidentiality is not restored; publication of those matters is not enjoined.
  • The claimant's application to restore the wider form of injunction is refused.