Campbell v MGN Ltd
The tort of misuse of private information protects information in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, balanced against freedom of expression.
Facts
The Daily Mirror published articles revealing that Naomi Campbell, the model, was a drug addict receiving treatment at Narcotics Anonymous, giving details of her treatment and publishing photographs of her leaving a meeting in a London street. Ms Campbell had previously publicly denied using drugs. She accepted that the newspaper was entitled to reveal that she was a drug addict and was having treatment, because she had misled the public, but she claimed that publishing the details of her treatment and the photographs was a breach of confidence.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority of three to two, that the publication of the details of Ms Campbell's treatment and the photographs was unlawful. The law of breach of confidence, developed under the influence of articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protects private information where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the court must then balance the right to privacy against the right to freedom of expression, considering the proportionality of the interference with each. Lord Nicholls described the cause of action as misuse of private information. The details of Ms Campbell's treatment were akin to medical information, and the photographs added to the intrusion, so their publication went beyond what was justified to correct her false statements. She was awarded £3,500 in damages.
Related cases on civil liberties: expression, assembly, privacy and police powers
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) 9 QBD 308
- Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Duncan v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218
- Gillan v United Kingdom (2010) 50 EHRR 45
Studying public 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.
