The Duke of Sussex v News Group Newspapers Limited
[2023] EWHC 1944 (Ch)
Hugh Grant v News Group Newspapers Limited
26 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1273 (Ch)
High Court
Hugh Grant sued a newspaper for illegally getting information about him. The judge said he knew enough about the phone hacking to sue earlier, so that part of the case is dismissed. But the judge let the other parts of the case continue because it's not clear he knew about those other things earlier.
Key Facts
- •Hugh Grant sued News Group Newspapers Limited (NGN) for misuse of private information through unlawful information gathering (UIG).
- •The claim was initially statute-barred under s.2 Limitation Act 1980.
- •Grant argued that s.32(1)(b) of the Act suspended the limitation period due to NGN's deliberate concealment of relevant facts.
- •NGN admitted deliberate concealment for the purposes of the application but argued the claim was still time-barred.
- •Grant's claim included various forms of UIG: voicemail interception, landline tapping, blagging, bugging, burglaries, and use of private investigators.
- •Grant's claim was considered compendious, encompassing all incidents of specified UIG within a certain period.
- •The court considered the application of the 'worthwhile claim' test from *FII* and *Gemalto*, focusing on when Grant knew or could have known of a worthwhile claim, not necessarily all essential facts.
- •The court analyzed Grant's knowledge before and after 2012, considering various public statements, publications, and legal actions.
Legal Principles
Section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 suspends the limitation period if a fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed.
Limitation Act 1980, s.32(1)(b)
The 'worthwhile claim' test from *FII* and *Gemalto* determines when limitation begins to run in deliberate concealment cases. A claimant needs sufficient confidence to embark on the preliminaries to issuing a claim, not necessarily certainty of success or knowledge of every essential fact.
*Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v HMRC [2022] AC 1* and *Gemalto Holding BV v Infineon Technologies AG [2022] 3 WLR 1141*
Each distinct breach in a claim for breach of contract gives rise to a separate cause of action (*The Kriti Palm*).
*AIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1601*
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted for NGN on the phone-hacking part of Grant's claim.
The court found that by January 2016, Grant knew (or had access to) sufficient facts to have confidence in bringing a phone-hacking claim. The availability of evidence suggesting NGN's denials were false further supported this conclusion.
Summary judgment dismissed for the remainder of Grant's claim (landline tapping, bugging, blagging, burglary, and use of private investigators).
The court found that Grant had a realistically arguable case that he did not know and could not have reasonably discovered before the applicable date that he had worthwhile claims regarding these other forms of UIG.