• S10 Immunity Defamation Act 2013
• Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974]
• Sheffield Wednesday v Neil Hargreaves [2007]
Large Group Session 7 – Protection of Privacy
• Defamation – protect C’s reputation; if statement true -> no claim
• Privacy
o info will be true
o misuse of private info
o side affect of protecting reputation
o add relationship between celebrity/public figure and the press
• celebrities rely on press for fame – famous for being famous; famous for
talent (i.e. singer, actor, comedian etc) (e.g. promos); sometimes press
overstep bounds
• Many journalists hacked phones – voicemails accessed remotely to
acquire personal info
• Case
o 13yo girl went missing
o Parents and family and police were calling her phone until voice
mail full
o Some press members deleted messages
o Everyone thought she was alive
o She wasn’t – body found a few days later
• Judge Levenson advocated some legislation of the press
32
, • Privacy of space – no one allowed to go into personal private space
without express permission
o Tort of trespass (actionable per se)
• Bernstein v Skyviews
o S flew aircraft over property and took pics of property and tried
to sell them back
o B sued S in trespass – plane flew over property
o Claim didn’t succeed because plane flew above airspace B
owned
• Long range camera lenses undermine privacy of space – don’t need to be
near C’s land to take pic therefore not trespass
o Use of drones would be trespass because it would have to fly
lower than planes – into C airspace that he can own
• Privacy of person – personal space
o Protects from physical contact
o Tort of battery – any non consensual touch/contact is battery
(with exceptions)
• Wainwright v Home
o Mum and son with learning disability was visiting son (C’s bro) in
prison
o Had to strip search for drugs
o No physical contact made
o Claim failed
• Pigeon hole – no general tort of privacy
o Courts ask – was there infringement of privacy? If yes – company
given/cause of action
o US and New Zealand have general tort of privacy
33
• Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974]
• Sheffield Wednesday v Neil Hargreaves [2007]
Large Group Session 7 – Protection of Privacy
• Defamation – protect C’s reputation; if statement true -> no claim
• Privacy
o info will be true
o misuse of private info
o side affect of protecting reputation
o add relationship between celebrity/public figure and the press
• celebrities rely on press for fame – famous for being famous; famous for
talent (i.e. singer, actor, comedian etc) (e.g. promos); sometimes press
overstep bounds
• Many journalists hacked phones – voicemails accessed remotely to
acquire personal info
• Case
o 13yo girl went missing
o Parents and family and police were calling her phone until voice
mail full
o Some press members deleted messages
o Everyone thought she was alive
o She wasn’t – body found a few days later
• Judge Levenson advocated some legislation of the press
32
, • Privacy of space – no one allowed to go into personal private space
without express permission
o Tort of trespass (actionable per se)
• Bernstein v Skyviews
o S flew aircraft over property and took pics of property and tried
to sell them back
o B sued S in trespass – plane flew over property
o Claim didn’t succeed because plane flew above airspace B
owned
• Long range camera lenses undermine privacy of space – don’t need to be
near C’s land to take pic therefore not trespass
o Use of drones would be trespass because it would have to fly
lower than planes – into C airspace that he can own
• Privacy of person – personal space
o Protects from physical contact
o Tort of battery – any non consensual touch/contact is battery
(with exceptions)
• Wainwright v Home
o Mum and son with learning disability was visiting son (C’s bro) in
prison
o Had to strip search for drugs
o No physical contact made
o Claim failed
• Pigeon hole – no general tort of privacy
o Courts ask – was there infringement of privacy? If yes – company
given/cause of action
o US and New Zealand have general tort of privacy
33
