[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION



Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori (instructed by Schillings) for the Claimant Richard Spearman QC (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the First Defendant David Price QC (of David Price Solicitors & Advocates) for the Second Defendant Hearing dates: 14 & 20 April 2011 ____________________

Mr Justice Eady :

"The first limiting principle (which is rather an expression of the scope of the duty) is highly relevant to this appeal. It is that the principle of confidentiality only applies to information to the extent that it is confidential. In particular, once it has entered what is usually called the public domain (which means no more than that the information in question is so generally accessible that, in all the circumstances, it cannot be regarded as confidential) then, as a general rule, the principle of confidentiality can have no application to it."

i) No one Convention article has as such precedence over another.

ii) Where conflict arises between rights under Article 8 and Article 10, an "intense focus" is required in the particular circumstances of the case upon the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed.

iii) The court must take into account the justification put forward for interfering with or restricting each right.

iv) The proportionality test must be applied to each.

" the Assembly reaffirms the importance of every person's right to privacy, and of the right of freedom of expression, as fundamental to a democratic society. These rights are neither absolute nor in any hierarchical order, since they are of equal value."