McClaren v News Group Newspapers Ltd.

McClaren v News Group Newspapers Ltd.

The claimant, as a former England football manager and public figure who previously disclosed details of an extra-marital affair, could not establish that his Article 8 rights outweighed the defendant's Article 10 rights. The balance fell decisively in favour of publication, and the claimant was unlikely to obtain a permanent injunction. Accordingly, the application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

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 / Ruling on Urgent Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Public Interest, Role Model Doctrine
Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Freedom of Expression +2 more

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 / Ruling on Urgent Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding a sexual relationship
  2. 2 Whether the balance between Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) justified an interim injunction restraining publication
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is a public figure and if so, whether higher standards of conduct are expected

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant, as a former England football manager and public figure who previously disclosed details of an extra-marital affair, could not establish that his Article 8 rights outweighed the defendant's Article 10 rights. The balance fell decisively in favour of publication, and the claimant was unlikely to obtain a permanent injunction. Accordingly, the application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

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