OPO v MLA & Anor

OPO v MLA & Anor

There is no cause of action in English law that entitles a child to restrain a parent from publishing autobiographical material about the parent, even if publication may foreseeably cause psychiatric harm to the child. Article 8 ECHR does not create a private law cause of action in this context, there is no duty of care in negligence, and the Wilkinson v Downton tort does not apply. The balancing exercise between privacy and freedom of expression strongly favours the father's right to publish. The application for an injunction is dismissed and the claim as a whole is struck out.

Parties
Claimant: OPO (A Child by BHM his litigation friend); First Defendant: MLA; Second Defendant: STL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort/injunction) / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Injunction
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Negligence, Wilkinson V Downton Tort, Misuse of Private Information, Article 8 ECHR, Freedom of Expression, Parental Responsibility, Jurisdiction
Tort Law Family Law Media Law Conflict of Laws Injunctions Negligence Wilkinson V Downton Tort Misuse of Private Information +4 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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OPO (A Child by BHM his litigation friend)

Claimant

MLA

First Defendant

STL

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort/injunction) / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a child can obtain an injunction to restrain a parent from publishing autobiographical material likely to cause psychiatric harm
  2. 2 Whether English law provides a cause of action in tort (negligence, Wilkinson v Downton, misuse of private information) in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether Article 8 ECHR provides a private law cause of action between private parties in this context

Ratio Decidendi

There is no cause of action in English law that entitles a child to restrain a parent from publishing autobiographical material about the parent, even if publication may foreseeably cause psychiatric harm to the child. Article 8 ECHR does not create a private law cause of action in this context, there is no duty of care in negligence, and the Wilkinson v Downton tort does not apply. The balancing exercise between privacy and freedom of expression strongly favours the father's right to publish. The application for an injunction is dismissed and the claim as a whole is struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for injunction dismissed
  • Claim as a whole dismissed