Full case report
Kaye v Robertson & Sport Newspapers Ltd
Reference  FSR 62; The Times 21 March 1990
Court Court of Appeal
Judge Glidewell, Bingham and Leggatt LJJ
Date of Judgment 16 Mar 1990
Privacy – Malicious falsehood – Trespass – Whether cause of action available to the plaintiff – Photographs – Injunctions
The plaintiff was a well known actor recovering in hospital from a serious injury. Two journalists gained access to his private room, took photographs and conducted an interview. They threatened to publish the interview, and P sought an injunction.
Whether P had a cause of action which would enable the Court to grant an injunction
Any article which conveyed the meaning that the plaintiff had given informed consent to the interview would amount to malicious falsehood. There was no actionable right of privacy in English law.
The statement of the Court of Appeal that there was no common law protection of privacy stultified the development of privacy law for many years. The position changed following the incorporation of the Human Rights Act but the House of Lords recently re-affirmed that there was no general law of privacy under the common law in Wainwright v Home Office.
Wright Webb Syrett for the Plaintiff; Kaye Tesler & Co for the Defendant
More from 5RB
5RB is the pre-eminent set in the area for handling defamation, privacy, contempt and data protection matters. Interviewees praise the set for having great depth and quality of counsel, and note that it boasts many of the top barristers in the field. Get the lowdown here.
New 22nd Edition of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, published by Sweet & Maxwell. Further info here.