TSE & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd

TSE & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd

The claimants had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their sexual relationship. There was no evidence or argument advanced that publication was in the public interest or that the claimants had misled the public. The court, applying the balancing test under Articles 8 and 10 and s.12 HRA, found that the claimants were likely to establish that publication should not be allowed. The injunction was necessary to prevent further intrusion and harassment, particularly of the claimants' families and children, and remained justified despite some information entering the public domain.

Parties
Claimant: TSE; Claimant: ELP; Defendant: News Group Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
Injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Anonymity Orders, Public Interest Defence
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Freedom of Expression Anonymity Orders Public Interest Defence

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TSE

Claimant

ELP

Claimant

News Group Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to information about their sexual relationship
  2. 2 Whether publication of the information should be prohibited balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights
  3. 3 Whether an injunction should be granted despite some information being in the public domain

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their sexual relationship. There was no evidence or argument advanced that publication was in the public interest or that the claimants had misled the public. The court, applying the balancing test under Articles 8 and 10 and s.12 HRA, found that the claimants were likely to establish that publication should not be allowed. The injunction was necessary to prevent further intrusion and harassment, particularly of the claimants' families and children, and remained justified despite some information entering the public domain.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted

Orders

  • Prohibition of publication of any information tending to identify the claimants as having had a sexual relationship or affair, or as being applicants for the order, except as contained in the public part of the order or judgment.
  • Anonymity order for the claimants.