ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2017] EWHC 328 (QB) (23 February 2017)

ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2017] EWHC 328 (QB) (23 February 2017)

The claimant failed to demonstrate that the balance between Article 8 and Article 10 rights favoured the grant of an interim injunction, as the public interest in publication and the defendant's reasonable belief in that interest outweighed the claimant's privacy rights. The defendant was entitled to rely on the journalistic exemption under s32 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and the claimant was not likely to succeed at trial.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 328 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: ZXC; Defendant: Bloomberg LP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (privacy/data Protection) / First Instance Judgment on Interim Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Interim Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Data Protection Act 1998 S32, Freedom of Expression, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Media Law Privacy Law Data Protection Misuse of Private Information Interim Injunctions Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Data Protection Act 1998 S32 +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

ZXC

Claimant

Bloomberg LP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (privacy/data Protection) / First Instance Judgment on Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is likely to succeed at trial in establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information published by the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the balance between Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) favours granting an interim injunction
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can rely on the journalistic exemption under s32 of the Data Protection Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate that the balance between Article 8 and Article 10 rights favoured the grant of an interim injunction, as the public interest in publication and the defendant's reasonable belief in that interest outweighed the claimant's privacy rights. The defendant was entitled to rely on the journalistic exemption under s32 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and the claimant was not likely to succeed at trial.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Interim injunction refused
  • No order for removal of the article from the defendant's website