Browne v Associated Newspapers Ltd Rev 1

Browne v Associated Newspapers Ltd Rev 1

The claimant failed to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to the alleged misuse of BP resources, the bare fact of the relationship, and the alleged breach of confidentiality regarding BP matters. The public interest in disclosure outweighed the claimant's privacy rights under Article 8. The details of the lie told by the claimant should not be published in the court's public judgment, but the claimant was not entitled to an injunction restraining publication of those details by the newspaper, given the relevance of the lie to the balance between privacy and freedom of expression.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Lord Browne of Madingley; Defendant/respondent: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in main; allowed in part regarding publication of details of the lie in the judgment.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy, Interlocutory Injunctions
Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Freedom of Expression Right to Privacy Interlocutory Injunctions

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lord Browne of Madingley

Claimant/appellant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

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 court should permit publication of certain categories of information relating to the claimant's private life and alleged misuse of corporate resources
  3. 3 Whether the court should publish details of a lie told by the claimant in its public judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to show a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to the alleged misuse of BP resources, the bare fact of the relationship, and the alleged breach of confidentiality regarding BP matters. The public interest in disclosure outweighed the claimant's privacy rights under Article 8. The details of the lie told by the claimant should not be published in the court's public judgment, but the claimant was not entitled to an injunction restraining publication of those details by the newspaper, given the relevance of the lie to the balance between privacy and freedom of expression.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in main; allowed in part regarding publication of details of the lie in the judgment.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed as to categories b), c), and d) of information; injunction not restored in general terms.
  • Judge's public judgment to be excised of details of how the claimant and JC met (the lie); no injunction granted restraining newspaper from publishing those details.