Ferdinand v Mgn Ltd (Rev 2) [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB) (29 September 2011)

Ferdinand v Mgn Ltd (Rev 2) [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB) (29 September 2011)

The information published in the article was in principle protected by Article 8 as private information, but the Defendant's Article 10 right to freedom of expression and the public interest in correcting a misleading public image outweighed the Claimant's privacy rights. The Claimant had projected an image of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2454
Parties
Claimant: Rio Ferdinand; Defendant: MGN Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Privacy/misuse of Private Information / Judgment After Trial
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Freedom of Expression, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 Rights
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Freedom of Expression Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 Rights

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rio Ferdinand

Claimant

MGN Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Privacy/misuse of Private Information / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of the article 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 privacy rights

Ratio Decidendi

The information published in the article was in principle protected by Article 8 as private information, but the Defendant's Article 10 right to freedom of expression and the public interest in correcting a misleading public image outweighed the Claimant's privacy rights. The Claimant had projected an image of himself as a reformed character, and the article contributed to a debate of general public interest regarding his suitability as England captain. The publication was justified and did not constitute misuse of private information or breach of confidence.