Tort law cases often make the news headlines. The purpose of the web links provided here is to fill you in on some of the background to the cases and, occasionally, statutes that you are studying. They include a mixture of video and audio clips, newspaper reports, blog posts, Government reports, case reports and so on. We've also taken the opportunity to include 'updates' where the law has changed or developed since the publication of the book.
In our experience it is often easier to remember the facts or decision of a particular case when you know a bit more about its background - when you can, for example, visualise the parties involved, or picture the accident or event that lead to the claim. We also believe that awareness of the context of a particular case or the passage of a statute can often help students understand – and begin to question – why the decision was reached, or why the introduction of legislation was felt necessary. Our view is that it is important that you experience – and engage with – tort law as a dynamic and fluid process, as a body of progressive rather than static, ahistorical rules. We hope that the links provided here (as well as other things you may link to from them) will help you do this and that they will give you a sense of historical perspective and an insight into the role of the context and history in the development of legal doctrine.
We've done our best to ensure that the links are as extensive as possible but the links are (obviously) not exhaustive. We urge you to make keep an eye on developments both in tort and other areas of law by reading good legal blogs as well as the law pages of quality newspapers online.
Of course, we also know that on occasions (particularly when a deadline is pressing) these sort of additional materials (as well as the others included on our online resources) can prove to be a bit of a distraction. These links are intended to supplement your studies. They are not an alternative to the harder work of reading the text book, academic commentary, and cases. In fact, there is no excuse for not reading the cases. Within these web links we've provided deep links on BAILLI to a selection of key cases from each chapter, and we encourage you to put your background reading, watching, and surfing to good use by reading these in full so that you gain a deeper understanding of the issues they raise.
A good starting point for comments on privacy cases and issues is the website of INFORRM (the International Forum for Responsible Media Blog)
INFORRM also publishes data on the number (and types) of cases in Media Law being heard by the courts in every legal year, and has an ongoing table of Media Law cases at https://inforrm.org/table-of-cases-2/
The decision of Mr Justice Eady in Lord Browne of Maddingley [BP Boss] v Associated Newspapers [The Mail on Sunday]  EWHC 202 (QB) is a cracking read and is very useful on breach of confidence/privacy! Tony Blair is in there, the Beckhams, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson and his Brazilian lover 'Reinaldo' etc.
See also Court of Appeal decision in same case:
Are women unfairly treated by super-injunctions? – video clip
Who looks after our privacy?
Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) Note: in the wake of the 2012 Leveson Report the Press Complaints Commission (referred to in some items below) was disbanded and replaced in September 2014 with the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
An independent organisation monitoring British newspapers and magazines to ensure they adhere to ethical guidelines. The IPSO’s Editors’ Code and the outcome of various rulings on complaints are available on the website.
Though the new Independent Press Standards Organisation has not been without criticism:
Roy Greenslade, ‘Press regulation déjà vu: 'new' Ipso and the old PCC resemble each other’ The Guardian, 4 November 2014
Sir Christopher Meyer, a former Press Complaints Commission chairman, on injunctions and privacy changes
One blogger wondered what the new body would look like: ‘Will the PCC become the Independent Press Standards Organisation?’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jun/25/press-regulation-city-am
Still trying to work it all out, in June 2013 Lord Justice Leveson accepted an invitation to speak to the culture, media and sport select committee: ‘Leveson to appear before MPs to discuss press regulation’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/27/leveson-appear-mps-press-regulation.
Oliver Lock, ‘Prince Harry and David Beckham: a close look at IPSO’s approach to privacy’
Set up as an ‘alternative’ press regulator by some of those dissatisfied with IPSO, IMPRESS also acts for the public in maintaining press standards, including about invasions of privacy:
The recognition of IMPRESS as an alternative regulator is discussed in the Press Recognition Panel report published in 2019: https://pressrecognitionpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Press-Recognition-Panel-PRP-Report-on-the-Recognition-System-February-2019.pdf
The independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries. The website includes sections on codes and guidelines, consultations etc.
A private, London-based human rights campaign group on privacy issues, particularly when invasion of privacy thought to be by governments or corporations
Privacy and Human Rights
‘What Human Rights Do for Privacy’
A fantastic infographic by EachOther - Everything you need to know about your human right to privacy, just one click away:
Privacy in the news
It is often the case that famous people and their privacy cases become ‘news’. Many news items on these cases include explanations of what happened in a particular case, links to background stories and related sites, including videos or podcasts, and sometimes links to the HM Courts Service so that you can then read the judgment of a that case in full. Other privacy-type issues often also hit the headlines. Here are a few high-profile examples from the BBC and newspaper archives to get you started, though it is well worth keeping your eye on the news in this area as new cases (as will be seen from all the recent additions in the textbook!) are coming up all the time:
Naomi Campbell wins privacy case (6 May 2004)
Mosley wins court case over orgy (24 July 2008)
Max Mosley raises the stakes over invasion of privacy (27 December 2008)
Max Mosley's battle for privacy (17 February 2009)
On the ongoing claims by Max Mosley (30 September 2011)
In Mosley v UK (App No.48009/08);  ECHR 774, the European Court of Human Rights rejected Max Mosley’s claim that the UK government was obliged to introduce a duty of pre-notification where intimate or sexual details were to be released about an individual in the press (see section 16.6 in textbook). However, Mr Mosley continued to fight on (see for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/02/max-mosley-media-warn-subjects-expose). In this podcast, Joshua Rosenberg analyses Mr Mosley’s privacy complaint.
You can watch the Chamber judgment here: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings&c=#n1357300199863_pointer (easiest to find by selecting ‘webcast by state’ and then ‘United Kingdom’.
‘Mosley v Google, RIP’
On Murray: Rowling wins court photo appeal (7 May 2008)
DNA database 'breach of rights' (4 December 2008)
Facebook 'withdraws' data changes (18 February 2009)
The Queen gets tough on paparazzi in royal privacy row (5 December 2009)
The Queen authorised a crackdown on the paparazzi amid her growing anger at intrusions into the private lives of members of the Royal family and their friends
Can celebrities expect privacy? (15 July 2011)
Mirror eludes Ferdinand offside trap, but it's no reprieve for 'kiss and tell' (30 September 2011)
Video clip of publicist Max Clifford saying the publication of photographs of Prince Harry in Las Vegas was clearly an invasion of privacy
William and Kate win French injunction over topless photos (18 September 2012)
'Bulger killers' images': Two receive suspended sentences
The BBC reported on 26 April 2013 that two men who – in contempt of court – published photographs on Twitter and Facebook said to show the killers of James Bulger (Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, whose privacy is protected by an injunction contra mumdum (see section 16.4 of textbook) have received suspended jail sentences: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22310412.
Public has right to know Boris Johnson fathered child during affair, court rules (21 May 2013)
Paul Weller children win privacy damages over photos on Mail Online
This was upheld by the Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal upholds privacy claim by family of Paul Weller https://www.rpc.co.uk/perspectives/data-and-privacy (searchable)
Following on from Paul Weller’s children’s case, his wife campaigned for a child privacy law:
Wife of Paul Weller calls for child press protection
Hannah Weller: I’m fighting to protect everyone’s children
Video news report on Rio Ferdinand failed privacy claim – including interview with Sunday Mirror http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15115077
Video news report on Campbell decision, with claims from Piers Morgan that the judgment created a 'back door privacy law' and comment from Campbell's lawyer
BBC Interactive forum (web clip) on the Douglas/Zeta Jones case (at High Court), featuring questions from the public posed to barrister Iain Christie, author of the Law of Privacy and the Media.
Hugh Grant on super-injunctions and 'privacy theft' (16 May 2011) – video clip
How Pokémon Go could challenge and change our privacy laws (20 July 2016)
Beyond the news
Not only are these stories ‘news’, but they are often the subject of editorials, comment pieces, and debate. We have placed a selection to get you talking – another great source is the Inforrm blog (which also covers defamation).
On the Royal Family
‘Royal privacy: 2-1 to the Windsors (with one own goal for Harry)’
The Queen is entitled to protection when she's saying humdrum things – but the same doesn't apply to Prince Charlie's commercial interests, argues Michael White (16 September 2012)
‘Yes, the Royal Family deserves privacy, but so does the ‘problem family’’, says Brendan O’Neill (17 September 2012)
On Boris Johnson
‘Boris Johnson: The flawed Mayor of London’: His indiscretions are finally catching up with him, writes his biographer Sonia Purnell (21 May 2013)
Case Comment: AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd – “Mother knows best…” by Kirsten Sjøvoll for the Inforrm blog (2 July 2013): http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/case-comment-aaa-v-associated-newspapers-ltd-mother-knows-best-kirsten-sjovoll/
On privacy cases in general
In late 2008, Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers (including the Daily Mail) and chair of the Press Complaints Commission’s editors’ code committee, who argues frequently in defence of free speech, spoke out at the Society of Editors Conference against some of the rulings being made in privacy cases. Read his speech and also some news articles and comments written in response to it, below:
Society of Editors: Paul Dacre's speech in full
Daily Mail chief Paul Dacre criticises BBC growth and privacy rulings, The Guardian (10 November 2008)
The regulator, the lawyer and the editor, The Guardian (11 November 2008)
Lachlan Urquhart, 'Privacy and Freedom of the Press from 2004-2015: From Campbell to Leveson'
This chapter documents the developments in the English law of breach of confidence since the seminal Campbell v MGN case in 2004. In particular, it documents the growth of the new action of ‘misuse of private information’.
Hugh Tomlinson QC ,‘Will the tort of misuse of private information disappear if the Human Rights Act is repealed?’
There was an enormous amount of press coverage following the ‘phone hacking scandal’ perpetrated by the (now obsolete) News of the World (and others). Here are just a few websites to get you started:
Hacked off – a campaign for a good public inquiry into phone hacking
See also this publication by Hacked Off from September 2016 – ‘No More Excuses’
Guardian Law pages on the phone-hacking saga
House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee
The other hacking scandal: Suppressed report reveals that law firms, telecoms giants and insurance companies routinely hire criminals to steal rivals' information
The Independent newspaper’s genuine ‘scoop’ in relation to exactly who was involved in phone hacking, over and above the press (22 June 2013): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-other-hacking-scandal-suppressed-report-reveals-that-law-firms-telecoms-giants-and-insurance-companies-routinely-hire-criminals-to-steal-rivals-information-8669148.html
In November 2016, Mirror Group Newspapers was reported to have paid out £500,000 to settle phone-hacking and other misuse of private information claims brought to 29 people including the entertainer Les Dennis, presenter Natasha Kaplinsky and EastEnders actor Steve McFadden. Many of the claimants were friends or family of the famous people targeted by journalists:
The judgment handed down by Mr Justice Mann on 21 May 2015 in the Mirror Group quantum cases, Gulati and others v MGN ( EWHC 1482 (Ch)), was said to represent a turning point in the phone hacking litigation. See:
Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in Mirror phone hacking damages case
On the Leveson Inquiry and aftermath
The most high-profile development in the law relating to privacy, generated by the discovery of illegal phone hacking by the press, was the Leveson inquiry. The findings of Lord Justice Leveson were published in November 2012 (see section 16.3 of book). Though not primarily concerned with civil remedies the revelations emerging from the inquiry in respect of press ethics have certainly generated a lot of opinion, both in the newspapers and in blog sites. Some examples are below. Many others can be found via a quick Internet search!
Leveson’s vision of a regulated press http://www.rpc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=526&Itemid=107
The Leveson Report – Women and the Press
Leveson: Press proposes its own ‘Royal Charter’
On 25 April 2013 (the same day as the Defamation Act was passed – coincidence?), some newspaper groups representing the national newspapers (not including the Guardian or the Independent) proposed their own ‘Royal Charter’ for the ‘Independent Self-Regulation of the Press’ [see pdf here]. News International - one of the groups behind the proposal – said that it ‘will deliver a tough new regulator for the press that will be independent of judges and politicians’. See comment on the proposal at the Inforrm blog.
In June 2013 Lord Justice Leveson accepted an invitation to speak to the culture, media and sport select committee: ‘Leveson to appear before MPs to discuss press regulation’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/27/leveson-appear-mps-press-regulation – but it is unlikely this will happen before autumn 2013
Searchable database of the Leveson Inquiry Transcripts:
See one opinion piece on this on the Huffington Post blog (24 June 2013): ‘Why Did Leveson, Politicians and Police Bury the Real Scandal of the 'Other Hacking' Report?’ at http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/neil-wallis/phone-hacking-leveson-report_b_3487459.html?utm_hp_ref=tw and another on Inforrm’s blog (2 July 2013): ‘Hackgate – Project Riverside and The SOCA Report’ at http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/hackgate-project-riverside-and-the-soca-report/#more-21986
On super injunctions
There has also been a lot of coverage and critique of the use of so-called super injunctions. Again, here are just a few articles to get you started
BBC News – Q&A: Super-injunctions
Are celebrities gagging the media more than ever? (20 April 2011)
Hugh Grant on super-injunctions and 'privacy theft' (16 May 2011) – video clip
Are women unfairly treated by super-injunctions? – video clip
Guardian Law Pages on Super-injunctions including comment on the breach of these under the guise of parliamentary privelege
A privacy injunction was granted against the Sun by the High Court on 14 May 2016 by Warby J in the case of DMK v NGN ( EWHC 1646 (QB)). This prevented the identification of the defendant in proceedings in the Chancery Division and the publication of information relating to those proceedings.
Essay: Sir Stephen Sedley on Superinjunctions in the London Review of Books https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/essay-sir-stephen-sedley-on-superinjunctions-in-the-london-review-of-books/
‘Publication of hacked David Beckham emails renders injunction worthless’ (January 2017)
On the PJS ‘celebrity threesome’ super-injunction (from 2016)
A selection from among the many, many comment pieces written on the PJS case (at both CA and SC level):
PJS v News Group Newspapers. On Monday 18 April 2016, the Court of Appeal (Jackson, King and Simon LJJ) decided that the injunction should be discharged ( EWCA Civ 393). Inforrm had a post about the Court of Appeal decision and a case comment on the 5RB website.
In an anonymised judgment dated 22nd January - but only later published - the Court of Appeal underscored the importance of the right to privacy in the context of sexual activity. https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2016/04/08/when-prurient-curiosity-meets-privacy/
This celebrity injunction will probably rebound – a case of the ‘Streisand effect’ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/11/celebrity-injunction-rebound-streisand-effect-sex-scandal-privacy-free-speech
Celebrity threesomes and the futility of A-lister injunctions in England http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/celebrity-threesome-futility-lister-injunctions-england-1554269
Case Comment and Preview: PJS v NGN, The last rites of the privacy injunction? In the Supreme Court on Thursday – Sara Mansoori and Aidan Wills https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/case-comment-and-preview-pjs-v-ngn-the-last-rites-of-the-privacy-injunction-in-the-supreme-court-on-thursday-sara-mansoori-and-aidan-wills/#more-33826
Case Comment: PJS v NGN, Supreme Court restores interim injunction in landmark privacy case https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2016/05/26/case-comment-pjs-v-ngn-supreme-court-restores-interim-injunction-in-landmark-privacy-case-sara-mansoori-and-aidan-wills/
Celebrity injunction: why the law is not an ass when it comes to privacy – Gavin Phillipson
Supreme Court Upholds Injunction In Celebrity Threesome Case
Tommy Chen, ‘PJS and the tort of misuse of private information’
New tort: misuse of personal/private information
That there is such a ‘new’ tort was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in March 2015: Vidal-Hall v Google  EWCA Civ 311
Lorna Skinner, ‘Case Law: Vidal-Hall v Google, Distress damages can be awarded under s 13 DPA without pecuniary loss (and misuse of private information is a tort)’ INFORRM 31 March 2015
Rosalind English, ‘Google’s misuse of private browsing data entitles individuals to damages’ UK Human Rights Blog 31 March 2015
Privacy Issues in New Zealand: Sex with the Office Lights on – Nicole Moreham, INFORRM 13 February 2015
Tolley v JS Fry & Sons Ltd 
Peck v The United Kingdom (1993)
Campbell v MGN Ltd 
Von Hannover v Germany (2004)
Douglas & Ors v Hello Ltd. & Ors 
McKennitt & Ors v Ash & Anor 
Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd 
Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd 
Mosley v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 48009/08)
The Author of A Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd 
LNS/ John Terry v Persons Unknown 
Ntuli v Donald 
Re Guardian News and Media Ltd 
JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Rev 1) 
Ferdinand v MGN Ltd (Rev 2) 
Hutcheson (Formerly Known As ‘KGM’) v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Others 
Giggs (formerly known as CTB) v NGN Ltd & Another 
Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Limited 
Rocknroll v News Group Newspapers Ltd 
AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd