Hosking tort Flashcards
Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd
Nothing in the scene reflected badly on the family - lack of involvement
Hosking v Runting ratio
1.Public figures have a reduced expectation of privacy. Matters related to celebrity persona are less likely to be considered private.
- If it’s not sensitive, it doesn’t matter
Andrews v Television NZ Ltd
“as a general rule, something that occurs in a public place is unlikely to give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy”
- expectation that the conversation would not travel any further?????
Elements of the Hosking tort
- Publication
- Private facts
- Reasonable expectation to no additional publication
- Highly offensive to a reasonable person
Defence:
- Legitimate public concern
Campbell case
- Campbell had lied
- It was in the public interest to set the record straight
Henderson v Walker
Harder to meet the highly offensive test is publication is limited + takes away legitimate public concern defence
Peck v United Kingdom
- Private facts occurring on a public street
- not public concern
Publication case(s)?
- Henderson v Walker
Private facts case(s)?
- Hosking v Runting
- Campbell
- C v Holland
Reasonable expectation of privacy case(s)?
- Andrews v TVNZ
- Hosking v Runting
- Campbell
Highly offensive to a reasonable and objective person case(s)?
- Hosking v Runting
- Henderson v Walker
- Bradley v Wingnut
- Andrews v TVNZ
- Peck v UK
Legitimate public concern case(s)?
Campbell - have they made the concern public
Which case esablishes a privacy tort/the elements of the privacy tort?
Hosking v runting
Cases under publication?
Henderson v Walker
Cases under private facts?
Hosking v Runting
Campbell
C v Holland
Cases under reasonable expectation of privacy?
Hosking v Runting
Andrews
Campbell
Cases under highly offensive to a reasonable and objective person?
Hosking v Runting
Henderson v Walker
Bradley v Wingnut
Andrews v TVNZ
Peck v UK
Cases under legitimate public concern?
Campbell - has made the concern public
