Murray v Express Newspapers plc
A child of a famous person may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of photographs taken of him in a public street.
Facts
J K Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, was walking in an Edinburgh street with her husband and their young son, David, who was in a pushchair. A photographer secretly took photographs of the family, using a long lens, and one of them, showing the child's face, was published in a newspaper magazine. The child, through his parents, sued the photographic agency for misuse of private information. The agency applied to strike out the claim.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the claim should not have been struck out. Sir Anthony Clarke MR said that whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy is a broad question, which takes account of all the circumstances of the case, including the attributes of the claimant, the nature of the activity, the place where it was happening, and the nature and purpose of the intrusion. It was at least arguable that a child of famous parents had a reasonable expectation that he would not be targeted by photographers in a public place, when the photograph was taken for publication without the parents' consent, because of his parents' fame.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
- Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, [2022] AC 1158
- 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
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.
