Hugh Grant v News Group Newspapers Limited
[2023] EWHC 1273 (Ch)
The Duke of Sussex & Ors v MGN Limited
15 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3217 (Ch)
High Court
Four people sued a newspaper for illegally getting their private info. The judge found the newspaper did bad things but said two of the people waited too long to complain, so they lost. The other two got money because the newspaper was caught red-handed.
Key Facts
- •Four claimants sued MGN Limited for misuse of private information.
- •The claims involved phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering.
- •MGN made limited admissions, contesting most allegations.
- •Key issues included whether damages could include publication losses and if claims were statute-barred.
- •The court considered evidence from multiple witnesses, documents, and inferences.
- •The judgment addressed a generic claim and individual claims for each claimant.
- •The court considered whether the board and legal department knew about and concealed unlawful activities.
- •The court assessed the evidence regarding the extent of phone hacking before and after the Mulcaire and Goodman arrests.
- •The court examined the activities of numerous private investigators and other third parties.
- •The court analyzed whether claims were statute-barred due to limitation issues.
Legal Principles
Two-stage test for misuse of private information: reasonable expectation of privacy and whether it's outweighed by freedom of expression.
Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457; ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] 2 WLR 424
Article 8 rights can be engaged even in public places if the nature of the activity is private.
Weller v Associated Newspapers [2016]
Revealing some aspects of private life doesn't forfeit privacy in relation to other aspects.
McKennitt v Ash [2006] QB 73
Adverse inferences can be drawn from the absence of witnesses, considering availability, expected evidence, and overall case significance.
Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33
Limitation period for misuse of private information doesn't begin until the claimant discovers or could have reasonably discovered the concealment.
Limitation Act 1980, s.32
Each act of unlawful information gathering is a separate tort.
Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1291
Damages for misuse of private information include distress, injury to feelings, and loss of autonomy.
Gulati v MGN Ltd
Outcomes
The Duke of Sussex's claim succeeded in part.
The court found evidence of phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering on specific occasions, leading to awards of damages for invasion of privacy and distress.
Michael Turner's claim succeeded in part.
The court found some instances of phone hacking and unlawful searches, but the majority of claims were dismissed due to lack of evidence or triviality.
Nikki Sanderson's claim was dismissed.
The claim was statute-barred due to limitation; the claimant could have discovered the facts supporting her claim with reasonable diligence before the limitation period expired.
Fiona Wightman's claim was dismissed.
The claim was statute-barred due to limitation; the claimant could have discovered the facts supporting her claim with reasonable diligence before the limitation period expired.