Aidan Eardley KC
Call: 2002 Silk: 2022
Call: 2002 Silk: 2022
Aidan Eardley KC took silk in 2022, after an exceptionally busy and varied career as a junior. He has a broad practice encompassing all aspects of media and information law, with particular expertise in data protection and contempt of court.
His clients have included national newspapers and broadcasters, MPs, celebrities, trade unions, government departments, public authorities, social media operators, regulators and large and small companies. He has appeared in courts and tribunals at every level of seniority.
His recent work includes the leading contempt of court case, Attorney General v Crosland, in the Supreme Court, and Mincione v Gedi Gruppo Editoriale Spa in the Court of Appeal, concerning the jurisdiction to grant an internet injunction against a foreign defendant in a libel claim.
As a junior, Aidan served on the Attorney General’s ‘A’ Panel of counsel and on the Bar Standards Board’s Advisory Pool of Experts, advising the BSB on data protection matters. He sits as a Deputy High Court Judge and a criminal Recorder.
Aidan is a co-author of Duncan & Neill on Defamation and a contributor to Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt and Information Rights.
Aidan has extensive experience acting for claimants and defendants in defamation and malicious falsehood claims.
For D (ex-minister Matt Hancock MP) in libel claim brought by Andrew Bridgen MP (as he then was) in respect of a Tweet accusing C of having published a Tweet about covid vaccinations that was antisemitic in character.Mr Hancock’s appeal was heard in May 2026.
For D in long-running claim in respect of articles and videos published in England and Wales by Italian media company alleging grounds to suspect the C of serious criminal wrongdoing in respect of his dealings with the Vatican.
For Telegraph Media Group Ltd (D2) in claim concerning articles alleging that C had hidden and controlled assets that it knew to have been illicitly acquired. Now settled.
For D. Arguments about limitation and estoppel in libel and privacy claim.
For C in trial of preliminary issues in libel claim.
For (successful) D1 in challenge to jurisdiction (including “serious financial loss” under DA 2013, s1(2)).
For D, successfully resisting appeal against finding that statement in a government press release was an expression of opinion.
Junior counsel for D successfully resisting appeal against determination of meaning in respect of a CPS press release.
Junior Counsel for D, seeking to resist appeal against determination that defence of justification should be struck out in light of court’s determination of meaning.
Junior counsel for D in long-running libel and malicious falsehood litigation. CA held defence of justification to be made out and reduced damages accordingly.
For D2, successfully upholding dismissal of libel claim on grounds of qualified privilege and Jameel abuse.
Junior counsel for D seeking to uphold CA decision refusing permission to C, a fugitive from justice, from giving evidence remotely in his libel trial.
Junior counsel for D in appeal concerning addition of new claim for slander out of time.
Aidan has extensive experience of claims for misuse of private information, acting for claimants and defendants. See also breach of confidentiality above.
Counsel/junior counsel for Ds in hard-fought privacy claim concerning the bugging of the Ritz hotel.
Junior counsel for D in a landmark privacy case concerning reports of a police investigation into Sir Cliff Richard.
Urgent interim injunction, and then trial, for successful claimant, a wealthy woman connected with a foreign royal family, in claim for misuse of private information and harassment.
Junior counsel for D successfully arguing at return date and then on appeal that C, a chief executive of a major international company, was not entitled to an interim injunction in misuse of private information.
Junior counsel for D resisting injunction application to prevent defendant media group from disclosing addresses of homes where C intended to house troubled children.
Aidan deals with commercial breach of confidence cases and those concerning private information (see privacy below).
Junior counsel for Cs in long-running breach of confidence claim against ex -partner in a property investment business. Settled pre-trial.
Aidan has extensive experience in data protection and information law, both in cases connected with the media and more generally.
2nd leading counsel for Tiktok in appeal against £12m monetary penalty notice. Tiktok contends that the MPN was imposed unlawfully because the ICO did not comply with the procedure applicable in cases of processing for the special purposes. Appeal heard by the Upper Tribunal, May 2026. Judgment awaited.
For C in claim that a misleading newspaper headline amounted to unfair processing of his personal data. Permission granted to appeal to Court of Appeal. Hearing due in June 2026l.
For Channel 4, successfully arguing that a request for information about advertising revenue fell outside FOIA because it was in respect of information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature.
For D in judicial review of lawfulness of “immigration exemption” under UK GDPR.
Junior counsel for Appellant in appeal concerning the special purposes exemption in DPA 1998.
Junior counsel for Appellant in successful challenge to government’s use of its “veto” powers to avoid compliance with an order requiring disclosure of correspondence between government and the Prince of Wales.
For 2nd Respondent, a journalist seeking information about the use of government powers to deprive individuals of their citizenship.
Counsel / Junior counsel for appellant in successful appeal against refusals by government departments to disclose correspondence with the Prince of Wales.
Aidan has acted in many urgent injunction cases for claimants and defendants.
Aidan has acted for claimants in a number of harassment cases.
For D resisting appeal against declaration that court has jurisdiction to determine applications for costs and damages where C obtained an interim injunction but then failed to issue claim form. Outcome awaited.
Successfully resisting interim injunction aimed at preventing a journalist from reporting on allegations made by an employee of the C, allegedly in breach of a non-disclosure agreement.
For C. Successful urgent application where the C had inadvertently disclosed confidential and privileged information to the D which the D was threatening to exploit and publish. Default judgment and final injunction later obtained.
Junior counsel in successful urgent application for C against an ex-employee threatening to publish confidential information. Swiftly resolved thereafter.
Urgent interim injunction, return date hearing, and then successful summary judgment application in claim by celebrities.
Successful urgent application for celebrity clients against an individual said to be harassing them. Injunction continued to trial and summary judgment obtained.
Urgent interim injunction, and then trial, for successful claimant, a wealthy woman connected with a foreign royal family, in claim for misuse of private information and harassment.
For C, a wealthy woman with close connections to a foreign head of state, in a long running privacy/harassment claim, beginning with an interim injunction. Maintained until trial and then made permanent.
Junior counsel for D successfully arguing at return date and then on appeal that C, a chief executive of a major international company, was not entitled to an interim injunction in misuse of private information.
Junior counsel for D resisting injunction application to prevent defendant media group from disclosing addresses of homes where C intended to house troubled children.
As a junior, Aidan spent many years advising newspapers, broadcasters and book publishers on pre-publication matters.
Aidan has advised both media regulators and complainants bring complaints under regulatory codes.
Aidan is recognised as a leading practitioner in contempt of court.
Aidan deals with reporting restrictions and other cases involving the open justice principle.
For AG in case on appropriate penalty for admitted contempt by D for breaching an injunction in a libel claim. On appeal, D sought unsuccessfully to vary sentence on grounds of hardship.
For SG in case concerning the display of signs outside the Crown Court (where an environmental protest case was being heard) telling jurors that they had a right to acquit according to their conscience.
For SG where D found in contempt for breaches of a civil restraint order.
For AG in case involving the breach, for conscientious reasons, of the embargo on disclose of draft judgments circulated in confidence. In a further appeal the SC considered appeal rights in contempt cases.
Junior counsel for AG in successful contempt proceedings for strict liability contempt, breach of a reporting restriction and common law contempt, all arising from D’s live-streaming of criminal defendants as they arrived at court during their trial for “grooming” children for sexual abuse.
For SG in a case considering the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear an application for contempt in the face of a criminal court.
Junior counsel for successful C in EAT case concerning power to make a restricted reporting order extending beyond the date of EAT’s judgment in substantive appeal.
For the C in a case concerning breaches of orders aimed at restricting D, a vexatious litigant, from assisting others to bring claims.
For D, successfully arguing that Court should not permit C to make a statement in open court in anonymised form following settlement of his privacy claim, and should not be entitled to anonymity in the judgment refusing his application.
Junior counsel for AG in a case concerning an article about the ongoing criminal proceedings for phone hacking that amounted to strict liability contempt.
For D, successfully discharging an interim injunction in libel claim that would have impinged upon the conduct of criminal proceedings against C.
For more information
For more information or to instruct Aidan please get in touch with our clerking team, who can deal with your enquiry and provide any required information: