Partner Article

Firm sheds light on number of privacy claims

Latest figures show that privacy claims in the UK courts have reached a record high, with celebrities in particular seeking injunctions to keep their private lives out of the public eye.

Fiona Lazenby, partner for the family team at Knights professional services in Derby questions whether these restrictions are causing problems for the courts and what they mean for transparency in court when hearing family cases.

According to latest figures*, cases involving privacy claims, or which highlight privacy as an issue, doubled to nearly 60 in 2015 as people increasingly sought to keep their identities a secret.

Fuelled by the Leveson Inquiry into press standards in November 2012, privacy claims have seen a resurgence in the past five years.

And Thomson Reuters, the digital data service which carried out the survey, found that around one in five of the privacy cases reported over the past 12 months involved celebrities and politicians.

Stories about a celebrity’s partner who had an affair and an English actor who hired a prostitute, are among several to have appeared in the media in the past couple of months, without the identities of those involved being revealed.

Not naming names publicly is not uncommon in the world of media vs. celebrity where often well-known personalities dealing with difficult family situations can approach the court judge to ask for an injunction. This protects their identity from being revealed in the media.

Divorced couple Noel Gallagher and Nicole Appleton are the latest high profile pair to ask a judge to guarantee anonymity in the media. Their upcoming court case will disclose the couple’s financial difficulties and the judge will have to weigh up the importance of confidentiality against the public’s right to know.

The welfare of children is always an overriding factor when considering media restrictions. However, in financial cases such as these, the judge has a number of considerations to factor in, including what is currently in the public domain. Part of Noel Gallagher’s financial information is already available as he owns a company which is legally required to publish these commercial details online via Companies House.

While some judges would make the argument that there should be complete transparency in court because of the public’s right to know, others might take more of a traditional view and feel that there should be a balance of exposure and confidentiality in regards to family cases.

From my experience in the family team at Knights, I believe that the press have a right to be invited into the courts. Quite often, the case would have been reported in the media and so the information is already available.

The right for the public to know is also a strong argument. In family cases, it is not about exposing the details of the case, as it would be in criminal trial, but it is about identifying the work that the courts and local authorities are undertaking – this is even truer when it comes to childcare and protecting children.

However, it needs to be considered that often the celebrity may not be at fault and is just going through a difficult family problem. The extra media attention can only add to the stress which is unfair and a ‘regular’ person with the same problems would not receive the same exposure.

The validity of such injunctions also has to be questioned when America has different media laws which impact on the UK court’s decision. The previously mentioned celebrity’s partner and English actor have had their names published in American press and a quick Twitter or Google search could easily reveal both of the identities – even though it still cannot be reported in the UK press.

It brings into the question the validity of the injunctions and the UK court system. Ultimately, it is a global issue and the courts here should be bearing in mind the media in other countries.

The increasing social media and online presence means that often information is available, changing the need for injunctions. The courts need to bear this in mind if the public want to keep their confidence in the UK court system and the decisions it makes. In light of this, and the given the varying opinions on injunctions between judges, the courts will soon be offering guidelines on the matter.

It is my view that confidential finances should remain just that, particularly when individuals are required to disclose their finances entirely; most of which are unlikely to be in the public domain. Only when a party does not comply with court rules and does not disclose their finances honestly should this be reported in the press. In essence, the role of the media should be as a watchdog – providing the public an insight into the workings of the court rather than using the opportunity to publish detail of financial wealth.

Knights is one of the fastest-growing professional services firm in the UK with a team of more than 400 professionals. For more information on the Knights’ family team, please visit: www.knights1759.co.uk.

*The survey was completed by Tomson Reuters.

This was posted in Bdaily's Members' News section by Knights Professional Services .