Bull vDesporte [2019] EWHC 1650 (QB) (26 June 2019)

Bull vDesporte [2019] EWHC 1650 (QB) (26 June 2019)

The claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information published about his sexual relationship, divorce, children, and health. The defendant's Article 10 right to freedom of expression did not outweigh the claimant's Article 8 rights, as the information was not of public interest but was private and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1650 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Gareth Bull; Defendant: Donna Desporte
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Privacy and Copyright Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in full for misuse of private information and copyright infringement.
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Copyright Infringement, Freedom of Expression, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Permanent Injunction, Public Interest Defence
Privacy Law Copyright Law Media Law Misuse of Private Information Copyright Infringement Freedom of Expression Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gareth Bull

Claimant

Donna Desporte

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Privacy and Copyright Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's publication of information about the claimant in a book constituted misuse of private information
  2. 2 Whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information published
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's right to freedom of expression outweighed the claimant's privacy rights

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information published about his sexual relationship, divorce, children, and health. The defendant's Article 10 right to freedom of expression did not outweigh the claimant's Article 8 rights, as the information was not of public interest but was private and intimate. The claimant did not consent to publication, and the information was not already in the public domain. The defendant also infringed the claimant's copyright in the photographs, as he was the author and owner and did not grant permission for their use.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in full for misuse of private information and copyright infringement.

Orders

  • Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or disclosing the identified private information and photographs.
  • Damages to be awarded to the claimant (quantum to be assessed or agreed).