Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446 (07 May 2008)

Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446 (07 May 2008)

It is at least arguable that a child, especially one whose parents have taken steps to shield him from publicity, has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the publication of photographs taken without consent in a public place. The claim should not have been struck out summarily; the balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 rights is a matter for trial.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 446
Parties
Appellant/claimant: David Murray (by his litigation friends Neil Murray and Joanne Murray); Respondent/defendant: Big Pictures (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Decision to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim reinstated for trial.
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Children's Rights, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Data Protection
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Misuse of Private Information Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Children's Rights Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Murray (by his litigation friends Neil Murray and Joanne Murray)

Appellant/claimant

Big Pictures (UK) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Decision to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a child has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding photographs taken and published without consent in a public place
  2. 2 Whether the publication of such photographs infringes Article 8 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the balancing exercise between Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR should be determined at trial or summarily

Ratio Decidendi

It is at least arguable that a child, especially one whose parents have taken steps to shield him from publicity, has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the publication of photographs taken without consent in a public place. The claim should not have been struck out summarily; the balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 rights is a matter for trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim reinstated for trial.

Orders

  • Order striking out the claim set aside
  • Case remitted for trial on the merits