John v Associated Newspapers Ltd. [2006] EWHC 1611 (QB) (23 June 2006)

John v Associated Newspapers Ltd. [2006] EWHC 1611 (QB) (23 June 2006)

The applicant failed to establish that he was more likely than not to succeed at trial in obtaining an injunction, as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in being photographed in a public street outside his home, and the circumstances did not justify departing from the general threshold for interim relief. The balance between Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR did not favour the applicant.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1611
Parties
Applicant: Sir Elton John; Respondent: Associated Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Decision on Interim Relief and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused; permission to appeal refused; costs awarded to respondent, summary assessment made.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Breach of Confidence, Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Breach of Confidence Privacy Freedom of Expression Article 8 ECHR +1 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir Elton John

Applicant

Associated Newspapers Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Decision on Interim Relief and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining publication of a photograph on grounds of privacy or breach of confidence
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances of the photograph
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is more likely than not to succeed at trial in obtaining injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that he was more likely than not to succeed at trial in obtaining an injunction, as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in being photographed in a public street outside his home, and the circumstances did not justify departing from the general threshold for interim relief. The balance between Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR did not favour the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused; permission to appeal refused; costs awarded to respondent, summary assessment made.

Orders

  • Interim injunction refused
  • Permission to appeal refused