header-logo header-logo

Non-celebrities affirm their privacy rights

21 October 2009
Issue: 7390 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyers increasingly used by private sector organisations in civil actions

Privacy arguments are no longer the preserve of celebrities and are being used in new and unexpected areas of law.

The public sector, in particular, faces increasing numbers of privacy-based legal challenges.

The traditional legal battle between famous individuals and the media made up only two out of 28 reported privacy cases in the year leading up to 31 May 2009, according to research by Sweet & Maxwell.

This is partly because privacy arguments are increasingly being used against the media to prevent publication without a full court hearing.
Jaron Lewis, media partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP, says: “Public figures are making more use of interim injunctions to stop stories not on the basis that the reporting is inaccurate but purely on the basis that the reporting infringes their privacy.

“These emergency injunctions can be imposed on the media at short notice, perhaps late at night or over the weekend, often by phone to a judge. The problem is that the court system doesn’t properly track these emergency injunctions so it is hard to quantify the problem.”

Lawyers are also more likely to raise privacy issues in civil cases brought against public sector organisations.

One recent high-profile example is the case of Purdy v DPP in which Debbie Purdy successfully argued that the lack of clarity on assisted suicide was a violation of her right to lead a private life.

Recent challenges to public sector organisations include: a man who claimed that a ban (for safety reasons) on him having an open-air funeral pyre when he died would be an invasion into his rights to a private life; and a single mother who claimed that the Child Support Agency was so inefficient in enforcing payment from the estranged father that the right of her and her children to lead a private life was breached.

Jonathan Cooper, of Doughty Street Chambers, says: “The wider use of privacy arguments in the UK courts is really the UK playing catch up with other countries where the concept of privacy has been taken more seriously.” He adds that the absence of privacy rights has been a defect of UK law.

Issue: 7390 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll