Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Tort Defamation > Privacy > Flashcards

Privacy Flashcards

1
Q

Privacy is not explicitly recognised as a tort in its own right

A

shown Wainwright v Home Office, Kaye v Robertson, more recently confirmed in Browne

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Wainwright v Home Office

A

strip and search of Cs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Kaye v Robertson

A

actor was interviewed and taken photos off in hospital after suffering bad injuries in a car accident;
it seemed right to protect his privacy in these circumstances but court had to apply a scatter gun approach because privacy is not explicitly recognised as a tort and none of them was an effective way of protecting his right to be left alone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

actor was interviewed and taken photos off in hospital after suffering bad injuries in a car accident;
it seemed right to protect his privacy in these circumstances but court had to apply a scatter gun approach because privacy is not explicitly recognised as a tort and none of them was an effective way of protecting his right to be left alone

A

Kaye v Robertson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Von Hannover v Germany

A

Due to s6 of the HRA which requires public authorities to positively protect convention rights the judges are required to develop the common law in a way that is consistent with the ECHR. This means judges are obliged to protect unjustifiable invasions of a persons privacy, which is protected under Art. 8 (limits o be drawn with Art. 10)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Due to s6 of the HRA which requires public authorities to positively protect convention rights the judges are required to develop the common law in a way that is consistent with the ECHR. This means judges are obliged to protect unjustifiable invasions of a persons privacy, which is protected under Art. 8 (limits o be drawn with Art. 10)

A

Von Hannover v Germany

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

It would be better left to partliament to create a free standing tort of privacy

A

Lord Hoffmann in Wainwright

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Lord Hoffmann in Wainwright

A

It would be better left to partliament to create a free standing tort of privacy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

breach of confidence action requirements (prior to recent developments)

A

1) confidential information
2) obligation of confidence
3) disclosure
originally employment towards 20th century broadening

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Stephens v Avery

A

no requirement of professional relationship or contractual relationship (friends secrets)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

no requirement of professional relationship or contractual relationship (friends secrets)

A

Stephens v Avery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Spycatcher

A

Lord Goff in this case suggest that an obligation could arise due to the nature of the information, example: diary page blowing out -> must be really obvious though

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Lord Goff in this case suggest that an obligation could arise due to the nature of the information, example: diary page blowing out -> must be really obvious though

A

Spycatcher

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Defence to confidency where information is already in public domain to some extent (Tom Jones being roudy on the plane)

A

Woodward v Hutchins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Woodward v Hutchins

A

Defence to confidency where information is already in public domain to some extent (Tom Jones being roudy on the plane)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Tort for Misuse of private information is distinct from breach of confidence

A

Vidal-Hall & ors v Google Inc

17
Q

Vidal-Hall & ors v Google Inc

A

Tort for Misuse of private information is distinct from breach of confidence
there is no need to refer back to breach of confidence principles in assessing a PQ

18
Q

Campbell v MGN

A

Two step test (Lord Nicholls)

1) had the C reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information that has been disclosed
2) Are there countervailing factors which require that Ds right to freedom of expression should prevail

19
Q

Two step test (Lord Nicholls)

1) had the C reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information that has been disclosed
2) Are there countervailing factors which require that Ds right to freedom of expression should prevail

A

Campbell v MGN

20
Q

Murray

A

JK ROWLING BABY
Objective reasonable person test:
What would a reasonable person in position of D be entitled to expect in terms of protection of his/her privacy

21
Q

JK ROWLING BABY
Objective reasonable person test:
What would a reasonable person in position of D be entitled to expect in terms of protection of his/her privacy

A

Murray

22
Q

Weller

A

confirms that idea of expectation in Murray is an objective one

23
Q

confirms that idea of expectation in Murray is an objective one

A

Weller

24
Q

McKennit

A

Misuse of private information and breach of confidence are separate;
dicta suggests that misuse of private information claim could be based on false information

Private informarion are def:
intimate details, and helath information
intimate conversations which wouldnot be held in public

25
Q

Misuse of private information and breach of confidence are separate;
dicta suggests that misuse of private information claim could be based on false information

Private informarion are def:
intimate details, and helath information
intimate conversations which wouldnot be held in public

A

McKennit

26
Q

Douglas v Hello!

A

Public figures are entitled to private lige, although where they have courted publicity they might have to accept greater scrutiny by the media

27
Q

Public figures are entitled to private lige, although where they have courted publicity they might have to accept greater scrutiny by the media

A

Douglas v Hello!

28
Q

A v B plc

A

Lord Wolff suggests that publications can be in the public interest by the mere value of a free and thriving press, or in other words profitable newspaper sales.

Essentially this would mean that you could justify any publication as long as it is profitable-> unlikely to be upheld

29
Q

Lord Wolff suggests that publications can be in the public interest by the mere value of a free and thriving press, or in other words profitable newspaper sales.

Essentially this would mean that you could justify any publication as long as it is profitable-> unlikely to be upheld

A

A v B plc

30
Q

Campbell

A

revelation of criminality will not always outweigh right to private life

31
Q

revelation of criminality will not always outweigh right to private life

A

Campbell

32
Q

setting the record straight might be a relevant factor

although Lady Hale in Campbell is not convinced of this and this was not the only factor here

A

Woodward v Hutchins

33
Q

Woodward v Hutchins

A

setting the record straight might be a relevant factor

although Lady Hale in Campbell is not convinced of this and this was not the only factor here

34
Q

Ferdinand v MGN

A

it is relevant where the Claimant is a leading figure or role model and the publication sheds light on hypocrisy (kind of setting the record straight)

35
Q

it is relevant where the Claimant is a leading figure or role model and the publication sheds light on hypocrisy (kind of setting the record straight)

A

Ferdinand v MGN

36
Q

Remedies

A

Primary remedies are injunctions, sometimes modest damages will be awarded however no exemplary ones

37
Q

Mosley (S&M case)

A

even if there has been a calculation of profit no exemplary damages

38
Q

Gulati

A

Should be compared to personal injury non-pecuniary damages (damages which are not readily quantified or valued in money, such as proposed compensation for pain and suffering.)

39
Q

Categories

A

Categories are specific situations and types of harm which are guided by special rules
Ask yourself: Does the situation fall under one of the special categories? If not Back to general test from Caparo

Tort Defamation (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions