Bloomberg LP v ZXC
A person under criminal investigation has, in general, a reasonable expectation of privacy in information relating to that investigation, before he is charged.
Facts
Bloomberg, a news organisation, published an article about a businessman, ZXC, who was the regional head of a company, based on a confidential letter sent by a UK law enforcement body to a foreign state, asking for help in its investigation into the company. The article reported that ZXC was being investigated for suspected fraud and corruption. He had not been charged with any offence. He sued Bloomberg for misuse of private information.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that Bloomberg was liable. Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens said that, as a legitimate starting point, a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation. This is because of the damage that can be caused to a person's reputation by the publication of the fact that he is under investigation, even though he may never be charged. The fact that the information came from a confidential law enforcement document strengthened his expectation of privacy, and the balance between his privacy and Bloomberg's freedom of expression favoured privacy.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11, [2012] 2 AC 273
- Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359
- Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27, [2020] AC 612
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
