The law now recognises that people have a right to a private life. And the law does not just protect the famous: it applies to everyone, whether or not they have a high-profile; such as company directors and employees.
As a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force in this country in October 2000, “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” This right to privacy has to be balanced against the countervailing right, also guaranteed by the Human Rights Act, to freedom of expression. In principle, each right has equal priority although there will be circumstances where one needs to give way to the other.
The media are often interested in publishing personal details to spice up a business or corporate story: the human interest element makes for better copy. However, much of the personal information that the media like to publish is private and confidential, and should not be published. This can include:
- Details of where you live
- Financial information including pay and bonuses
- Health
- Identity
- Photographs
- Sexual and intimate life/personal relationships.
You can often prevent this type of private information from being published with a formal approach to the media or failing that an injunction could be sought.
If private information is about to be published, in certain circumstances it will be possible to obtain an injunction/Stop Order prohibiting publication. In some cases, it will be obvious that the information in question is private, for example, if it relates to a person’s sex life or their medical history. Where the information is not obviously private, the test for the Court is whether the information is of a nature where its disclosure would be likely to give substantial offence to the subject of the information. This ‘substantial offence’ test (which is broader than the test used in confidence cases) was established in the leading case of Naomi Campbell v MGN Limited when the Mirror newspaper published photographs of model Naomi Campbell leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. This case, run by Schillings, proved to be a landmark one for privacy law.
In deciding whether or not it would be just to grant an injunction, the Court needs to consider amongst other things:
- the extent to which the private information has, or is about to, become available to the public;
- whether it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published; and
- any relevant privacy code (such as the Self-Regulatory Codes ).
Schillings are the leading lawyers in reputation management and brand protection; specialising in defamation and privacy for private clients and corporate organisations. Schillings have a very active dispute resolution department and we also provide family and matrimonial advice to our private client base of high-net worth individuals and celebrities. In addition, our sports department manages work in reputational, regulatory and sports sponsorship matters for some of the highest profile sports stars, brands and clubs.
If you have any queries please contact Schillings on 020 7034 9000 or email us at legal@schillings.co.uk