Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd [2007] EWCA Civ 101 (21 February 2007)

Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd [2007] EWCA Civ 101 (21 February 2007)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find, on the facts, that the hospital had not demonstrated that disclosure of the journalist's source was necessary and proportionate at the time of decision. The balancing exercise between the hospital's interest in confidentiality and the high public interest in investigative journalism, particularly given the changed circumstances (including the patient's consent and the public nature of much of the information), did not justify overriding the protection of journalistic sources. The appellate court would not interfere with the trial judge's value-laden assessment unless it was plainly wrong or involved an error of principle,...

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 101
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mersey Care NHS Trust; Defendant/respondent: Robin Ackroyd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (summary Judgment) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for the defendant/respondent (Ackroyd) upheld.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Journalistic Sources, Freedom of Expression, Confidentiality of Medical Records, Balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR Rights, Norwich Pharmacal Jurisdiction, Section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981, Proportionality and Necessity in Disclosure Orders
Media Law Human Rights Law Confidentiality Civil Procedure Disclosure of Journalistic Sources Freedom of Expression Confidentiality of Medical Records Balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR Rights +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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mersey Care NHS Trust

Claimant/appellant

Robin Ackroyd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (summary Judgment) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was necessary and proportionate to order a journalist to disclose his source under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, balancing Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) ECHR rights, in the context of leaked confidential medical records.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find, on the facts, that the hospital had not demonstrated that disclosure of the journalist's source was necessary and proportionate at the time of decision. The balancing exercise between the hospital's interest in confidentiality and the high public interest in investigative journalism, particularly given the changed circumstances (including the patient's consent and the public nature of much of the information), did not justify overriding the protection of journalistic sources. The appellate court would not interfere with the trial judge's value-laden assessment unless it was plainly wrong or involved an error of principle,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for the defendant/respondent (Ackroyd) upheld.

Orders

  • No order for disclosure of the journalist's source.
  • Costs to be determined as per standard practice.