Cases

CC v AB

Held

(1) There was no such principle of law as that contended for; this would be a generality, inconsistent with the need to apply an intense focus to the particular facts of an individual case. (2) The Article 8 rights of CC were engaged. So were those of N who did not, on the available evidence, wish publication to occur. The court could not disregard the impact of publication on CC’s family life, or on the Art 2, 3 and 8 rights of his wife. (3) The court should beware of applying personal moral views. The argument for AB, that the court should “vindicate” the institution of marriage, did not reflect AB’s own position. He wished to expose and humiliate not only CC but also his own wife. That could frustrate rebuilding CC’s marriage and damage his wife’s fragile mental state. CC had not misled the public or moralised publicly. There was no genuine public interest in disclosure. It was necessary to prevent AB from going directly or indirectly to the media or the internet with the story.

Also