PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 100 (22 January 2016)

PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 100 (22 January 2016)

The claimant is likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed because the evidence does not show that the claimant and his partner presented a false image of monogamy requiring correction, and the proposed publication would not contribute to a public debate or serve the public interest. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 100
Parties
Applicant: PJS; Respondent: News Group Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interim Injunction Application on Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR, Misuse of Private Information, Freedom of Expression, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR Misuse of Private Information Freedom of Expression Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

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 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJS

Applicant

News Group Newspapers Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interim Injunction Application on Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining publication of private information by a newspaper
  2. 2 Whether the first instance judge properly balanced Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights
  3. 3 Whether there is a public interest in publication sufficient to override privacy rights

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed because the evidence does not show that the claimant and his partner presented a false image of monogamy requiring correction, and the proposed publication would not contribute to a public debate or serve the public interest. The claimant's Article 8 right to privacy outweighs the respondent's Article 10 right to publish, especially considering the impact on the claimant's children.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted restraining the defendant from publishing the proposed article until trial or further order