There was an interesting article in The Times yesterday that I think would be useful ahead of the law exam I'm really looking forward to taking next week.
A judge has granted an injunction preventing a man whose wife had an affair with a public figure from revealing the identity of the celebrity on the grounds that it will adversely affect his own wife and children.
He ruled that the husband owed a duty of confidence to the adulterer and that revealing his identity would cause undue stress to the adulterer's wife, who has already threatened suicide.
The article in full is here and there's a comment piece that accompanied that article by The Times legal editor here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
A couple of years ago a judge ruled that Gary Flitcroft's girlfriend did not owe him a duty of confidentiality - which meant the papers could print her revelations. But this is an inetresting one - indiect or jigsaw type invasion of privacy. Interesting. But it shows the power of section eight of the Human Rights Act. More and more you can't reveal anything about people's private lives without consent (or payment). It is a French style privacy law by the back door.
Post a Comment