Murray v Express Newspapers Plc & Anor

Murray v Express Newspapers Plc & Anor

On the facts pleaded, the taking and publication of a photograph of the claimant in a public street, showing nothing intimate or embarrassing, does not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy or breach of confidence under English law. Even if European jurisprudence (Von Hannover) extends Article 8 protection to some public activities, English courts remain bound by Campbell, which excludes innocuous public conduct from privacy protection. The Data Protection Act claim also fails as there was no causative damage or distress, and the statutory requirements for compensation were not met.

Parties
Claimant: David Murray (by his litigation friends Neil Murray and Joanne Murray); First Defendant: Express Newspapers plc; Second Defendant: Big Pictures (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application Before Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed/struck out
Legal Topics
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Photographs in Public Places, Children's Privacy Rights, Data Protection Act Compliance, Freedom of Expression Vs Privacy, Breach of Confidence
Privacy Law Media Law Data Protection Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Photographs in Public Places Children's Privacy Rights Data Protection Act Compliance Freedom of Expression Vs Privacy +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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Claimant

Express Newspapers plc

First Defendant

Big Pictures (UK) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taking and publication of a photograph of a child in a public place without consent constitutes a breach of privacy or confidence under English law
  2. 2 Whether the Data Protection Act 1998 provides a remedy for the taking and publication of such a photograph
  3. 3 Whether recent European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence (Von Hannover, Sciacca) requires a change in English law's approach to privacy in public places

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts pleaded, the taking and publication of a photograph of the claimant in a public street, showing nothing intimate or embarrassing, does not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy or breach of confidence under English law. Even if European jurisprudence (Von Hannover) extends Article 8 protection to some public activities, English courts remain bound by Campbell, which excludes innocuous public conduct from privacy protection. The Data Protection Act claim also fails as there was no causative damage or distress, and the statutory requirements for compensation were not met.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed/struck out

Orders

  • The claim based on breach of confidence and invasion of privacy is struck out or dismissed.
  • The claim for compensation under the Data Protection Act is rejected.