Privacy and 3rd Parties Flashcards
Relevance of 3rd parties in privacy claims
Two lines of authority bringing 3rd party interests to forefront of privacy claims:
- The K line
- The CDE line
K v NGN (2011)
K is a married public figure, had an affair with X, X is later fired.
NGN want to publish as X seemingly dismissed due to affair so public interest to know that.
CA: Grants injunction due to impact it would have on their children.
“playground ridicule”
“bound to be harmed”
So - the interests of children could (not automatically) tip the balance in favour of granting injunction
CDE v MGN (2010)
Public figure. ‘Kiss and tell’ story.
Eady J: “almost certain” to prove distress and “bewilderment” to children, whose Art 8 rights are also engaged.
- Where is ‘bewilderment’ in Art 8?
- Just because it was the parents bringing the action, doesn’t mean we should be bound by those traditional constraints and not consider children’s interests.
Criticism of CDE v MGN
This argument contradicts general principles in tort.
For private nuisance claims, only someone with a proprietary interest can claim - their children can’t!
CDE only cites two authorities… one of which was Eady’s own judgment!
Yes, the outcomes may be good - but they got there in the wrong way! They should have been bold about what they wanted to do rather than hiding it with bad law.
RocknRoll v NGN (2013)
“teasing and ridicule could be seriously damaging to the caring relationship… that C is trying to establish with them.
Distinction between two risks:
- direct = teasing and ridicule
- indirect = negative impact on family life
Both aspects of Art 8.
Tells us that K v NGN is authority for the fact that the interests of children may tip the balance in favour of Art 8.
PJS v NGN (2016)
SUPREME COURT
Role model, public figure, ‘kiss and tell’.
SC clarifies the position that children’s rights are important to consider.
On its own, mere public interest in criticism for sexual encounters will not outweigh Art 8 rights.
