Misuse of private information

Last updated

Misuse of private information is a new common law tort that English courts recognised in Campbell v MGN Ltd . [1] Arising as a branch of the law relating to breach of confidence, it has been reinforced by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, supplemented by s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which obliges public institutions (including the courts) not to act inconsistently with Convention rights. [2]

Contents

Scope

Campbell was the watershed moment where the tort of "misuse of private information" became distinguished in scope from that relating to breach of confidence, as the former does not require "an initial confidential relationship." [3] In addition, actions for misuse of private information can readily attract tortious damages, while those for breach of confidence may receive damages only as an equitable remedy within the discretion of the presiding judge. [4]

While it will be obvious what may constitute public (as opposed to private) information in most cases, there will be times where it will need to be assessed as to whether disclosure of information would give substantial offence to an ordinary individual, as noted in Australia by Gleeson CJ in 2001:

An activity is not private simply because it is not done in public. It does not suffice to make an act private that, because it occurs on private property, it has such measure of protection from the public gaze as the characteristics of the property, the nature of the activity, the locality, and the disposition of the property owner combine to afford. Certain kinds of information about a person, such as information relating to health, personal relationships, or finances, may be easy to identify as private, as may certain kinds of activity which a reasonable person, applying contemporary standards of morals and behaviour, would understand to be meant to be unobserved. The requirement that disclosure or observation of information or conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities is in many circumstances a useful practical test of what is private. [5]

As originally recognized in Campbell, a cause of action was restricted to disclosures of information or activities in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy. [6] Expansion to include bare intrusions into privacy has been foreshadowed, such as where certain photographs are taken in a public place, however English courts are yet to definitively proscribe intrusions upon seclusion. [6] [7]

For example, an injunction against the Wolverhampton Express and Star was obtained in 2005 by an owner of several homes for troubled children to restrain it from disclosing plans for further homes, even though information was publicly available from searches of HM Land Registry records and unredacted minutes of local authority proceedings. [8] In his judgment, Tugendhat J explained why, in this case, rights under Article 8 overrode competing obligations under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to freedom of expression:

... The information as to the addresses linked with information as to the business of the applicant and thus to the likely disabilities and other characteristics of the occupants of the addresses brings together matters which together amount to new information which was previously accessible to the public only in a limited and theoretical sense. Publication or republication risks causing serious harm to the children and carers who occupy, or are to occupy, the addresses concerned. The extent to which the material has or is about to become available to the public is not, on the evidence of this case, a reason for withholding the injunction sought… [9]

Other Commonwealth jurisprudence

In addition to the Australian case law drawn upon by Campbell, there has been other jurisprudence arising in New Zealand [10] and Canada. [11] While the House of Lords followed the model previously adopted by the High Court of Australia, the other two jurisdictions based their approach on the US Restatement of Torts (Second) . [12] It has been noted in Canada that the more principled approach adopted by the English courts post-Campbell may be a better one to follow. [13]

See also

Further reading

Related Research Articles

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. In some, but not all, civil and mixed law jurisdictions, the term delict is used to refer to this category of civil wrong, though it can also refer to criminal offences in some jurisdictions and tort is the general term used in comparative law. The word tort stems from Old French via the Norman Conquest and Latin via the Roman Empire. The word 'tort' was first used in a legal context in the 1580s, although different words were used for similar concepts prior to this time.

Trade secrets are a type of intellectual property that includes formulas, practices, processes, designs, instruments, patterns, or compilations of information that have inherent economic value because they are not generally known or readily ascertainable by others, and which the owner takes reasonable measures to keep secret. Intellectual property law gives the owner of a trade secret the right to restrict others from disclosing it. In some jurisdictions, such secrets are referred to as confidential information.

Personality rights, sometimes referred to as the right of publicity, are rights for an individual to control the commercial use of one's identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers. They are generally considered as property rights, rather than personal rights, and so the validity of personality rights of publicity may survive the death of the individual to varying degrees, depending on the jurisdiction.

The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions that intends to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals. Over 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy.

Confidentiality involves a set of rules or a promise usually executed through confidentiality agreements that limits access or places restrictions on certain types of information.

In Australia, Torts are common law actions for civil wrongs. Unless barred by statute, individuals are entitled to sue other people, or the state; for the purpose of obtaining a legal remedy for the wrong committed.

Privacy laws of the United States American laws affecting privacy

The privacy laws of the United States deal with several different legal concepts. One is the invasion of privacy, a tort based in common law allowing an aggrieved party to bring a lawsuit against an individual who unlawfully intrudes into their private affairs, discloses their private information, publicizes them in a false light, or appropriates their name for personal gain.

Privacy law is the body of law that deals with the regulating, storing, and using of personally identifiable information, personal healthcare information, and financial information of individuals, which can be collected by governments, public or private organisations, or other individuals. It also applies in the commercial sector to things like trade secrets and the liability that directors, officers, and employees have when handing sensitive information.

The tort of breach of confidence is, in United States law, a common law tort that protects private information that is conveyed in confidence. A claim for breach of confidence typically requires the information to be of a confidential nature, which was communicated in confidence and was disclosed to the detriment of the claimant.

Photography and the law Legal status of photography, including intellectual property and privacy laws

The intellectual property rights on photographs are protected in different jurisdictions by the laws governing copyright and moral rights. In some cases photography may be restricted by civil or criminal law. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy or other laws. Photography can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.

<i>Campbell v MGN Ltd</i> 2004 House of Lords decision on privacy in English law

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd[2004] UKHL 22 was a House of Lords decision regarding human rights and privacy in English law.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

Canadian privacy law

Canadian privacy law is derived from the common law, statutes of the Parliament of Canada and the various provincial legislatures, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Perhaps ironically, Canada's legal conceptualization of privacy, along with most modern legal Western conceptions of privacy, can be traced back to Warren and Brandeis’s "The Right to Privacy" published in the Harvard Law Review in 1890, Holvast states "Almost all authors on privacy start the discussion with the famous article 'The Right to Privacy' of Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis".

<i>Attorney General v Blake</i> English contract law case on damages for breach of contract

Attorney General v Blake[2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268 is a leading English contract law case on damages for breach of contract. It established that in some circumstances, where ordinary remedies are inadequate, restitutionary damages may be awarded.

Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) was an English High Court case in which the former President of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, Max Mosley, challenged the News of the World. The newspaper had exposed his involvement in what it called a sadomasochistic sex act involving several female prostitutes when they published a video of the incident recorded by one of the women and published details of the incident in their newspaper, wrongly describing it as "Nazi-themed". The case resulted in Mosley being awarded £60,000 in damages.

Privacy in English law is a rapidly developing area of English law that considers situations where individuals have a legal right to informational privacy - the protection of personal or private information from misuse or unauthorised disclosure. Privacy law is distinct from those laws such as trespass or assault that are designed to protect physical privacy. Such laws are generally considered as part of criminal law or the law of tort. Historically, English common law has recognised no general right or tort of privacy, and was offered only limited protection through the doctrine of breach of confidence and a "piecemeal" collection of related legislation on topics like harassment and data protection. The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into English law the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8.1 of the ECHR provided an explicit right to respect for a private life. The Convention also requires the judiciary to "have regard" to the Convention in developing the common law.

Breach of confidence in English law is an equitable doctrine that allows a person to claim a remedy when their confidence has been breached. A duty of confidence arises when confidential information comes to the knowledge of a person in circumstances in which it would be unfair if it were disclosed to others. Breach of confidence gives rise to a civil claim. The Human Rights Act 1998 has developed the law on breach of confidence so that it now applies to private bodies as well as public ones.

A Norwich Pharmacal order is a court order for the disclosure of documents or information that is available in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is granted against a third party which has been innocently mixed up in wrongdoing, forcing the disclosure of documents or information. By identifying individuals the documents and information sought are disclosed in order to assist the applicant for such an order in bringing legal proceedings against individuals who are believed to have wronged the applicant.

New Zealand is committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which contain a right to privacy. Privacy law in New Zealand is dealt with by statute and the common law. The Privacy Act 2020 addresses the collection, storage and handling of information. A general right to privacy has otherwise been created in the tort of privacy. Such a right was recognised in Hosking v Runting [2003] 3 NZLR 385, a case that dealt with publication of private facts. In the subsequent case C v Holland [2012] NZHC 2155 the Court recognised a right to privacy in the sense of seclusion or a right to be free from unwanted intrusion. For a useful summary see: court-recognises-intrusion-on-seclusion-privacy-tort-hugh-tomlinson-qc/

Tort law in India

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

References

  1. ↑ Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 , [2004] 2 AC 457(6 May 2004)
  2. ↑ Allen, Tom (1 October 2005). Property and The Human Rights Act 1998. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN   978-1-84731-003-3.
  3. ↑ Campbell, par. 14
  4. ↑ "Misuse of Private Information is a Tort Distinct from Breach of Confidence". Allen & Overy. 12 March 2014., discussing Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13(QB) (16 January 2014)
  5. ↑ ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63 at par. 42, 208 CLR 199(15 November 2001), quoted at Campbell, par. 93
  6. 1 2 Hunt 2012, p. 662.
  7. ↑ Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 414 at para. 34(21 May 2009)
  8. ↑ Casement, David; Diaz-Rainey, Julian (13 March 2006). "Private matters". The Lawyer., discussing Green Corns Ltd v Claverley Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 958(QB) (18 May 2005)
  9. ↑ Green Corns, par. 81
  10. ↑ Hosking v Runting [2004] NZCA 34 , [2005] 1 NZLR 1(25 March 2004)
  11. ↑ Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 , 108 OR (3d) 241(18 January 2012)
  12. ↑ Hunt 2012, pp. 661–662.
  13. ↑ Hunt 2012, p. 663.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.