OPO v MLA & Anor [2014] EWHC 2468 (QB) (18 July 2014)

OPO v MLA & Anor [2014] EWHC 2468 (QB) (18 July 2014)

There is no arguable cause of action in English law for a child to restrain a parent from publishing autobiographical material about the parent's own life, even if it may cause emotional harm to the child. Article 8 ECHR does not create a private law claim in these circumstances; there is no duty of care in negligence; and the Wilkinson v Downton tort does not apply. The balancing exercise under Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR would in any event favour the father's right to freedom of expression. The application for an injunction and the claim as a whole are dismissed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2468 (QB)
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
Injunction Application (tort Claim) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Negligence, Wilkinson V Downton Tort, Article 8 ECHR, Freedom of Expression, Parental Responsibility, Injunctions
Tort Law Family Law Human Rights Law Misuse of Private Information Negligence Wilkinson V Downton Tort Article 8 ECHR Freedom of Expression +2 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 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

Injunction Application (tort Claim) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a child can restrain a parent from publishing autobiographical material likely to cause emotional harm
  2. 2 Whether English law provides a cause of action in tort (misuse of private information, negligence, Wilkinson v Downton) in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether Article 8 ECHR or domestic law supports the injunction sought

Ratio Decidendi

There is no arguable cause of action in English law for a child to restrain a parent from publishing autobiographical material about the parent's own life, even if it may cause emotional harm to the child. Article 8 ECHR does not create a private law claim in these circumstances; there is no duty of care in negligence; and the Wilkinson v Downton tort does not apply. The balancing exercise under Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR would in any event favour the father's right to freedom of expression. The application for an injunction and the claim as a whole are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for injunction dismissed
  • Claim as a whole dismissed