MICHAEL DOUGLAS AND OTHERS v HELLO! LTD (2000)

Hello! wanted to publish secretly taken photos of the wedding of Michael Douglas, right, and Catherine Zeta-Jones, though the couple had sold the rights to OK! The Court of Appeal refused to grant an injunction stopping Hello! because, among other reasons, the wedding’s privacy had already been compromised by the Douglas’s agreement to sell their photos.

JEAN F. JONES v UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK (2003)

The claimant injured her wrist at work, and sought special damages of £135,000 for disability. Her employer contended she was exaggerating her disability. The Court of Appeal ruled that a secretly made film of her could be shown in court even though it had been obtained in breach of her right to privacy because the public interest demanded it.

WAINWRIGHT AND ANOTHER v HOME OFFICE (2003)

Patrick O'Neill, a prisoner in Leeds, was suspected of drug dealing so the prison governor ordered his visitors’ to be strip-searched. Two relatives were searched unlawfully. Their claim for emotional distress damages failed as English law does not recognise a tort of invasion of privacy. Under the European convention, it recognises intentional invasion of privacy by a public authority but that did not apply to these facts.

LEEDS CITY COUNCIL v CHANNEL FOUR TELEVISION CORPORATION (2005)

The right to privacy of disruptive pupils surreptitiously filmed for a documentary about conditions in state schools was held to be outweighed by other interests. These included the public interest in seeing what was going on in schools and the rights of other pupils whose education had been frustrated.

NIEMA ASH v LOREENA MCKENNITT (2006)

This appeal decided that publication of parts of a book written by the former friend of a Canadian folk artist could be stopped as it included confidential information about the artist’s personal and sexual life. The public interest did not require her personal life to be exposed.

T v BBC (2007)

A documentary about adoption featured a mother with mental problems. She lacked the proper capacity to consent to be filmed, and was shown in harrowing scenes with her daughter, 2, from whom she was being parted. The High Court ruled that the mother and child should not be identified as the public interest in showing a documentary could be satisfied without their rights to privacy being violated.

NAOMI CAMPBELL v MIRROR GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD (2004)

As the model, right, had previously stated she had not taken drugs, a newspaper was entitled to publish news that she was seeking treatment for drug addiction. However, it was unnecessary to publish details of the treatment and an accompanying photo so Campbell won damages for their publication.

P Q AND R v MARK QUIGLEY (2008)

The defendant threatened to publish a novella depicting his former business associates in “unsavoury and fictitious sexual activities”. The court awarded a permanent injunction against publication to stop an “unacceptable intrusion into a personal and intimate area of their lives”.

DAVID MURRAY v BIG PICTURES (UK) LTD (2008)

A newspaper published a photo of the author J. K. Rowling with her husband and their baby son in an Edinburgh street. The Court of Appeal ruled that a case under the European Convention principle of privacy could go to trial, saying the law should protect the children of well-known parents where the child had a reasonable expectation of not being targeted.

MAX MOSLEY v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD (2008)

The defendant broadcast film of the world motor sport president in sadomasochistic orgies. He won £60,000 damages for the invasion of his privacy. The court held there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sex between consenting adults, and the exposure of unusual sex was not justified on the ground of public interest.

Professor Gary Slapper is director of the centre for Law at the Open University. His book How the Law Works is published by HarperCollins at £8.99

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle