Privacy victims to have their day in court
Entertainment & media
Schillings news | 6 April 2011
On Wednesday British media law will see a subtle but important change, as provisions relating to “statements in open court” are amended. Statements in Open Court have traditionally only been available in defamation cases. Under an update to the Civil Procedure Rules, a claimant who wishes to accept an offer of settlement in a malicious falsehood or privacy case can now apply to the court to make an “agreed” or “unilateral” statement in open court. The amendment is not limited to just “media” cases and it will be possible to request a statement in a claim for breach of commercial confidence.
Following the change, claimants can apply for a statement in open court in both the Queen’s Bench and the Chancery Divisions.
A statement in open court can therefore be used as an important mechanism for vindication for victims who have had their privacy invaded.
This is especially important in "false privacy claims" where there is often lots of speculation about a persons private life that is untrue. In these cases in particular it is vital to be able to set the record straight and let the world know that the allegations were untrue and infringed privacy. For example a false claim concerning a persons health or family life would not in itself be defamatory, but it would invade that persons to speculate about those aspects of their private life.
Until now there has been debate over whether the courts should allow victims in privacy cases access to the court to make a Statement in Open Court. Schillings Partner John Kelly said
"Schillings has been at the forefront of developing this area having successfully obtained Statements in Open Court in privacy cases on behalf of Madonna (Mail on Sunday), Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt (News of the World), Matt Lucas (Daily Star) and Elizabeth Hurley, Arun Nayar and Hugh Grant (Big Pictures). This is a most welcome clarification of the court rules, and provides valuable support for all victims of intrusive reporting. We can also see this being very useful in naming and shaming paparrazi who stalk clients to capture shots of their private lives. Under the new rules a papparazi agency can now be sanctioned publicly for taking intrusive photographs. This is what happened in the Hurley case ".
