Browne v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWHC 202 (QB) (09 February 2007)

Browne v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWHC 202 (QB) (09 February 2007)

The court held that an injunction should remain in force only in respect of information where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidence, such as private conversations and personal financial arrangements, but not in respect of information relating to the misuse of BP resources, the bare fact of the relationship, or the communication of corporate information, as these do not attract privacy protection or are subject to public interest. The claimant's lie to the court did not bar relief, but affected his credibility. The Bonnard v Perryman principle precluded injunctive relief for allegations that are potentially defamatory and where the defendant intends to justify them.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 202 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Lord Browne of Madingley; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (privacy/confidence) / Post Interim Injunction, Return Date/substantive Hearing
Outcome
Partial injunction granted; scope narrowed
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Defamation, Clean Hands Doctrine, Public Interest Defence
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Law Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) Defamation +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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lord Browne of Madingley

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (privacy/confidence) / Post Interim Injunction, Return Date/substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining publication of information on grounds of privacy and/or confidence
  2. 2 Whether Article 8 ECHR rights are engaged in relation to business-related information
  3. 3 Whether the Bonnard v Perryman principle precludes injunctive relief where allegations are potentially defamatory

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that an injunction should remain in force only in respect of information where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidence, such as private conversations and personal financial arrangements, but not in respect of information relating to the misuse of BP resources, the bare fact of the relationship, or the communication of corporate information, as these do not attract privacy protection or are subject to public interest. The claimant's lie to the court did not bar relief, but affected his credibility. The Bonnard v Perryman principle precluded injunctive relief for allegations that are potentially defamatory and where the defendant intends to justify them.

Court Disposition

Partial injunction granted; scope narrowed

Orders

  • Injunction to restrain publication remains in force only for categories of information where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidence, such as private conversations, personal financial arrangements, and certain dinner party discussions.
  • No injunction in respect of allegations relating to misuse of BP resources, the bare fact of the relationship, or communication of corporate information to Mr Chevalier.