Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd

Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd

It is at least arguable that a child, especially one deliberately targeted for commercial publication of photographs without parental consent, has a reasonable expectation of privacy under Article 8 ECHR, even in a public place. The claim should not have been struck out summarily; the issues require a trial to determine whether Article 8 is engaged and, if so, how the Article 8/10 balance should be struck. The Data Protection Act claim should also proceed to trial.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Striking Out Claim; Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order striking out claim set aside; case remitted for trial.
Legal Topics
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Children's Rights, Publication of Photographs, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Data Protection Act 1998
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Children's Rights Publication of Photographs 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 12 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Striking Out Claim; Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a child has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of photographs taken and published without consent in a public place
  2. 2 Whether publication of such photographs infringes Article 8 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the Data Protection Act 1998 is breached by such publication

Ratio Decidendi

It is at least arguable that a child, especially one deliberately targeted for commercial publication of photographs without parental consent, has a reasonable expectation of privacy under Article 8 ECHR, even in a public place. The claim should not have been struck out summarily; the issues require a trial to determine whether Article 8 is engaged and, if so, how the Article 8/10 balance should be struck. The Data Protection Act claim should also proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order striking out claim set aside; case remitted for trial.

Orders

  • Trial of all issues between the parties unless settled.