BKM Ltd v British Broadcasting Corporation [2009] EWHC 3151 (Ch) (02 December 2009)

BKM Ltd v British Broadcasting Corporation [2009] EWHC 3151 (Ch) (02 December 2009)

The claimant failed to demonstrate that it was likely to obtain an injunction at trial restraining broadcast. The public interest in exposing care home standards and regulatory effectiveness outweighed the relatively slight invasion of privacy, provided residents' identities were obscured. Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 imposed a high threshold for pre-trial restraint, which was not met. The injunction sought was too wide and not justified.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3151 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: BKM Limited; Defendant: British Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Post Hearing Judgment
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy, Clandestine Filming, Public Interest, Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Human Rights Law Privacy Law Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Right to Privacy Clandestine Filming Public Interest +3 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BKM Limited

Claimant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Post Hearing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should restrain broadcast of surreptitiously filmed material in a care home
  2. 2 Balancing Article 8 privacy rights of residents against Article 10 freedom of expression rights of the BBC
  3. 3 Justification for clandestine filming under privacy codes and editorial guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate that it was likely to obtain an injunction at trial restraining broadcast. The public interest in exposing care home standards and regulatory effectiveness outweighed the relatively slight invasion of privacy, provided residents' identities were obscured. Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 imposed a high threshold for pre-trial restraint, which was not met. The injunction sought was too wide and not justified.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused

Orders

  • No restraint on broadcast of programme or surreptitiously filmed material
  • Parties may restore application if further disagreement arises