Ferdinand v Mgn Ltd (Rev 2)

Ferdinand v Mgn Ltd (Rev 2)

The court held that while the information published was in principle protected by Article 8 and the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the balancing exercise favoured the defendant. The claimant had projected an image of being reformed and committed to family life, and as England football captain, was a public figure and role model. The article contributed to a debate of public interest by correcting a potentially false image and addressing the claimant's suitability as a role model. The publication was not an excessive intrusion and was justified under Article 10. The claim was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Rio Ferdinand; Defendant: MGN Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Freedom of Expression, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Freedom of Expression Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR

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

Parties

Rio Ferdinand

Claimant

MGN Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of details of the claimant's private life constituted misuse of private information and breach of confidence
  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 right to privacy under the balancing exercise

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the information published was in principle protected by Article 8 and the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the balancing exercise favoured the defendant. The claimant had projected an image of being reformed and committed to family life, and as England football captain, was a public figure and role model. The article contributed to a debate of public interest by correcting a potentially false image and addressing the claimant's suitability as a role model. The publication was not an excessive intrusion and was justified under Article 10. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed