E v Channel Four & Anor [2005] EWHC 1144 (Fam) (01 June 2005)

E v Channel Four & Anor [2005] EWHC 1144 (Fam) (01 June 2005)

The court refused to grant an interim injunction restraining the broadcast of the film or publication of the article because the Official Solicitor had not established that E lacked capacity or that her best interests required such an injunction. Even if E lacked capacity, her clearly expressed wishes to have the film broadcast were highly relevant, and the evidence did not show that broadcasting would likely cause her harm or that her Article 8 rights outweighed the Article 10 rights of the media. The threshold for interim relief under section 12(3) HRA 1998 was not met.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1144 (Fam)
Parties
Claimant: E (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor); Defendant: Channel Four; Defendant: News International Limited; Interested Party: St Helens Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction / Interim Relief Hearing Before Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Inherent Jurisdiction, Best Interests, Reporting Restrictions
Media Law Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Law Privacy Freedom of Expression Inherent Jurisdiction Best Interests Reporting Restrictions

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 3 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor)

Claimant

Channel Four

Defendant

News International Limited

Defendant

St Helens Borough Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction / Interim Relief Hearing Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an interim injunction restraining the broadcast of a documentary film and publication of an article about a mentally incapacitated adult (E) on grounds of privacy and best interests.
  2. 2 Whether E has capacity to consent to the broadcast and publication.
  3. 3 How to balance E's Article 8 rights (privacy) and Article 10 rights (freedom of expression) with the public interest and the rights of the media.

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant an interim injunction restraining the broadcast of the film or publication of the article because the Official Solicitor had not established that E lacked capacity or that her best interests required such an injunction. Even if E lacked capacity, her clearly expressed wishes to have the film broadcast were highly relevant, and the evidence did not show that broadcasting would likely cause her harm or that her Article 8 rights outweighed the Article 10 rights of the media. The threshold for interim relief under section 12(3) HRA 1998 was not met.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused

Orders

  • No injunction granted restraining the broadcast of the film or publication of the article.
  • Permission to appeal refused.