Ash & Anor v McKennitt & Ors

Ash & Anor v McKennitt & Ors

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge correctly found that the information published was private, imparted in a relationship of confidence, and not justified by public interest or public domain arguments. The balancing exercise between Articles 8 and 10 was properly conducted, with the claimant's right to privacy prevailing over the defendant's right to freedom of expression. The truth or falsity of the information did not affect the privacy claim.

Parties
Appellants: Niema Ash and another; Respondents: Loreena McKennitt and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Freedom of Expression, Public Interest Defence
Privacy Law Confidence Law Human Rights Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Freedom of Expression +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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Niema Ash and another

Appellants

Loreena McKennitt and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of private information in a book by a former friend constitutes a breach of confidence and misuse of private information
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's Article 8 rights to privacy outweigh the defendant's Article 10 rights to freedom of expression
  3. 3 Whether information already in the public domain or relating to a public figure loses its confidential nature

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge correctly found that the information published was private, imparted in a relationship of confidence, and not justified by public interest or public domain arguments. The balancing exercise between Articles 8 and 10 was properly conducted, with the claimant's right to privacy prevailing over the defendant's right to freedom of expression. The truth or falsity of the information did not affect the privacy claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Injunction against publication of specified private information in the book upheld
  • No order as to costs addressed in this judgment