The claimants said that a filming of their eviction from property was an invasion of their privacy.
Held: The Claimants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information included in the Programme about which they complain. The justification relied upon for interfering with their Article 8 rights was that the Programme contributed to a debate of general interest. Though the Programme did contribute to a debate of general interest, the inclusion of the Claimants’ private information went beyond what was justified for that purpose. The focus of the Programme was not upon the matters of public interest, but upon the drama of the conflict between Omar Ahmed and the Claimants, a conflict which had been encouraged to make ‘good television’.
Judges:
Arnold J
Citations:
[2018] EWHC 298 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mezvinsky and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 25-May-2018
Choice of Division and Business Lists
Claim that the publication of pictures of the young children of the celebrity claimants had been published by the defendant on-line without consent and without pixelation, in breach of their human rights, of data protection, and right to privacy. . .
See Also – Ali and Another v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd ChD 19-Apr-2018
Decision as to costs after findings of misuse of private information . .
Appeal from – Ali and Another v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd CA 16-Apr-2019
The claimant’s eviction had been filmed and broadcast by the defendants. They succeeded in an award of pounds 10,000 damages for breach of their rights of privacy. The parties cross appealed against the sum awarded and the finding respectively.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Information
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.616908