McClaren v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [2012] EWHC 2466 (QB) (05 September 2012)

McClaren v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [2012] EWHC 2466 (QB) (05 September 2012)

The claimant, as a former England football manager and public figure who previously disclosed private matters, could not expect to restrain publication of the story. The balance between Article 8 and Article 10 rights fell decisively in favour of the defendant. The claimant was unlikely to succeed in obtaining a permanent injunction, and damages would be an adequate remedy. Accordingly, the interim injunction was refused.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2466 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Steve McClaren; Defendant: News Group Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Non Disclosure Order (privacy Injunction) / Interim Application, Judgment on Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Balancing Competing Rights, Public Figure Doctrine
Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) Balancing Competing Rights Public Figure Doctrine

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

Parties

Steve McClaren

Claimant

News Group Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Non Disclosure Order (privacy Injunction) / Interim Application, Judgment on Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim non-disclosure order restraining publication of private information about a sexual encounter.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy under Article 8 ECHR.
  3. 3 How to balance the claimant's Article 8 rights against the defendant's Article 10 rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant, as a former England football manager and public figure who previously disclosed private matters, could not expect to restrain publication of the story. The balance between Article 8 and Article 10 rights fell decisively in favour of the defendant. The claimant was unlikely to succeed in obtaining a permanent injunction, and damages would be an adequate remedy. Accordingly, the interim injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim non-disclosure order refused
  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs of the hearing, to be assessed if not agreed