Sienna Miller wins privacy claim
Sienna Miller has been paid £35,000 (plus costs) by The Sun and The News of the World in an out of court privacy settlement.
The papers published stories and photographs earlier this year about Ms Miller's alleged relationship with Balthazar Getty and her breakup with Rhys Ifans.
Lawyers Carter Ruck sued under a range of laws including Breach of Confidence and Harassment.
Breach of Confidence is recently being reinterpreted as a privacy law by the English courts in light of the Human Rights Act. A claimant in a Breach of Confidence action has to demonstrate that the newspaper could reasonably foresee that there was an obligation of confidence. In the past, this has required some kind of contract or relationship. For instance, a company employee has an obligation of confidence to his employer (because of their employment contract). If that employee gives a reporter an internal memo containing confidential information, the journalist would be expected to foresee that there is an obligation of confidence and so that obligation would effectively pass on to them.
When Naomi Campbell was pictured coming out of a drug clinic by The Mirror in February 2001, there was no contract. Yet the courts ruled in her favour, effectively saying that the newspaper could reasonably foresee that she would want to keep that information confidential.
The principle was extended further when F1 Boss Max Mosely sued The News of the World earlier this year for publishing pictures of him with prostitutes. Again it was a Breach of Confidence action, where his lawyers argued that there was an obligation of confidence because the newspaper could reasonably foresee that he would wish to keep the information private.
There is a public interest defence to breach of confidence which the newspapers tried in both the Naomi Campbell and Max Mosely cases. In each case, the defence failed.
Settlement in the latest Sienna Miller case would imply that they newspapers felt they did not have a sufficiently strong public interest argument for publishing.
The papers published stories and photographs earlier this year about Ms Miller's alleged relationship with Balthazar Getty and her breakup with Rhys Ifans.
Lawyers Carter Ruck sued under a range of laws including Breach of Confidence and Harassment.
Breach of Confidence is recently being reinterpreted as a privacy law by the English courts in light of the Human Rights Act. A claimant in a Breach of Confidence action has to demonstrate that the newspaper could reasonably foresee that there was an obligation of confidence. In the past, this has required some kind of contract or relationship. For instance, a company employee has an obligation of confidence to his employer (because of their employment contract). If that employee gives a reporter an internal memo containing confidential information, the journalist would be expected to foresee that there is an obligation of confidence and so that obligation would effectively pass on to them.
When Naomi Campbell was pictured coming out of a drug clinic by The Mirror in February 2001, there was no contract. Yet the courts ruled in her favour, effectively saying that the newspaper could reasonably foresee that she would want to keep that information confidential.
The principle was extended further when F1 Boss Max Mosely sued The News of the World earlier this year for publishing pictures of him with prostitutes. Again it was a Breach of Confidence action, where his lawyers argued that there was an obligation of confidence because the newspaper could reasonably foresee that he would wish to keep the information private.
There is a public interest defence to breach of confidence which the newspapers tried in both the Naomi Campbell and Max Mosely cases. In each case, the defence failed.
Settlement in the latest Sienna Miller case would imply that they newspapers felt they did not have a sufficiently strong public interest argument for publishing.
Labels: Journalism, Media law
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home