X v. British Broadcasting Corporation & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_80 (22 June 2005)

X v. British Broadcasting Corporation & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_80 (22 June 2005)

The court held that the pursuer had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success at trial to justify the grant of interim interdict restraining broadcast. The evidence did not support that her consent was vitiated by incapacity or undue pressure, nor that the Contributor's Agreement or subsequent consents were prejudicial transactions under the 1991 Act. The Lion Contract and Guidelines did not confer a jus quaesitum tertio on the pursuer. Information filmed in public or in court, and information in Social Enquiry Reports referred to in open court, was not confidential. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression, as required by section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and...

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_80
Parties
Pursuer: X; First Defender: British Broadcasting Corporation; Second Defender: Lion Television Limited (trading as Lion Television Scotland)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (interdict, Contract, Privacy) / Interim Interdict (injunction) Hearing Before Outer House, Court of Session
Outcome
Interim interdict refused; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from interim restraint.
Legal Topics
Consent to Filming, Capacity to Contract, Prejudicial Transaction (age of Legal Capacity (scotland) Act 1991), Right to Privacy (article 8 Echr), Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Interim Interdict (injunction), Jus Quaesitum Tertio, Confidentiality of Court Documents
Media Law Contract Law Privacy Law Human Rights Law Consent to Filming Capacity to Contract Prejudicial Transaction (age of Legal Capacity (scotland) Act 1991) Right to Privacy (article 8 Echr) +4 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Pursuer

British Broadcasting Corporation

First Defender

Lion Television Limited (trading as Lion Television Scotland)

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (interdict, Contract, Privacy) / Interim Interdict (injunction) Hearing Before Outer House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's consent to filming was valid or vitiated by incapacity or undue pressure
  2. 2 Whether the Contributor's Agreement or subsequent consents were prejudicial transactions under the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer has a right to interdict (injunction) to prevent broadcast of footage involving her

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuer had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success at trial to justify the grant of interim interdict restraining broadcast. The evidence did not support that her consent was vitiated by incapacity or undue pressure, nor that the Contributor's Agreement or subsequent consents were prejudicial transactions under the 1991 Act. The Lion Contract and Guidelines did not confer a jus quaesitum tertio on the pursuer. Information filmed in public or in court, and information in Social Enquiry Reports referred to in open court, was not confidential. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression, as required by section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict refused; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from interim restraint.

Orders

  • Refusal of interim interdict to prevent broadcast of documentary footage involving the pursuer.
  • No order for reduction or setting aside of Contributor's Agreement at interim stage.