Although Lord Hoffmann disagreed with the majority’s decision on the facts in Campbell, he gave clear support to the recognition of a personal right to privacy in English law.  Indeed, the minority judgments from Campbell are more often relied on by those setting out the parameters of the privacy action than those of the majority.   I have not yet had an opportunity to read the speech in full but wonder if it was to Lord Hoffmann’s support for the recognition of the privacy tort that Eady J was referring in his speech.  

 

Best wishes,

Nicole

 

Dr Nicole Moreham
Senior Lecturer
Faculty of Law
Victoria University of Wellington
PO Box 600, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

 

With regards to the speech of Mr Justice Eady (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/justice-eady-univ-of-hertfordshire-101109.pdf), his Honour said:

 

‘… in Wainwright v Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406 (the case about strip searching), the House of Lords rejected an invitation to declare the existence of “a previously unknown tort of invasion of privacy”: see at [31]-[35].  Those are the words of Lord Hoffmann, with whom Lords Hope and Hutton agreed.

 

This was not, however, to deny the judicial function anticipated six years earlier by Lord Irvine of balancing, on the facts of individual cases, considerations of free speech and personal privacy whenever they come into conflict – since both reflect rights now incorporated into English law.  That there is no contradiction is perhaps highlighted by the  fact that, within months, Lord Hoffmann was also a party to the decision in the critically important case of Naomi Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457. “   

 

Eady J omitted to add that Lord Hoffmann was one of the dissentients in Campbell. 

 

With kind regards,

 

Danuta

 

 

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Members may be interested to know that the Ministry of Justice in England is undertaking a consultation on defamation and the internet, considering in particular whether to review the “multiple publication rule”. The consultation comes some seven years after a relevant Law Commission project (Law Commission, Defamation and the Internet: A Preliminary Investigation, Scoping Study No 2, December 2002) and coincides with a rise in adverse media coverage here about libel tourism and our allegedly overly claimant-friendly libel laws, particularly in the context of material published on the internet but originally in another jurisdiction. It considers Berezovsky and Loutchansky and there are also questions about the limitation periods for such claims. There is an alternative suggestion to extend “the defence of qualified privilege to publications on online archives outside the one year limitation period for the initial publication, unless the publisher refuses or neglects to update the electronic version, on request, with a reasonable letter or statement by the claimant by way of explanation or contradiction.”  The consultation is available here: http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/defamation-internet-consultation-paper.htm and is open until 16^th December 2009.

 

On this general theme, two recent judicial speeches may be of interest: by Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, who spoke to the Society of Editors last week (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/lcj-society-editors-nov-2009.pdf) and by Mr Justice Eady (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/justice-eady-univ-of-hertfordshire-101109.pdf)

 

Best wishes,

 

James