Misuse of Private Information CASES

In English law, misuse of private information is a tort that protects individuals against the unlawful disclosure or use of information in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Definition and development

The tort developed from breach of confidence and is now recognised as a distinct cause of action. It reflects the influence of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life.

The claim is available against both public authorities and private individuals, including media organisations.

Legal test

The courts apply a two-stage test. First, the claimant must show a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information. Second, the court balances the claimant’s privacy rights against the defendant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10.

Types of information protected

Protected information may include personal relationships, medical details, sexual life, financial information, and private communications. The context in which the information was obtained and disclosed is highly relevant.

Legal implications

Where misuse of private information is established, remedies may include damages, injunctions, or orders requiring removal of the information. Damages may be awarded for distress even without financial loss.

Practical importance

The tort plays a key role in protecting personal privacy in the media and online environments, while allowing courts to strike a balance between privacy and freedom of expression.

Lady justice with law books

WM Morrisons v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12

Morrisons’ employee Andrew Skelton, harbouring a grudge, copied payroll data of almost 100,000 staff and posted it online. Thousands sued Morrisons. The Supreme Court held Skelton acted on a personal vendetta, so Morrisons was not vicariously liable, clarifying limits of employer liability. Facts The appellant, WM Morrison Supermarkets plc, operates...

Law books on a desk

Terry v Persons Unknown [2010] EWHC 119 (QB)

John Terry, a high‑profile professional sportsman, sought a wide, largely secret interim injunction to prevent publication of information about a personal relationship. Tugendhat J refused to continue the order, emphasising open justice, the Bonnard v Perryman rule, and rigorous Article 8/10 balancing in privacy injunctions. Facts The applicant, John Terry...