One of the most confusing aspects of the law of privacy is the apparent inconsistency of the decisions regarding what information is and what is not allowed to be made public. Recently, both Jeffrey Archer and the Prime Minister have been successful in preventing the publication in the media of confidential information offered to the press by ex-employees. On the other hand, David and Victoria Beckham failed in their attempt to obtain an injunction to prevent the publication by their ex-nanny of the ‘secrets’ of their marriage. The court regarded the information as being a legitimate matter of public interest. Whilst accepting that the information was confidential, and that the nanny’s contract of employment contained a clause requiring an express duty of confidentiality, the court ruled that the public interest rule prevailed as the Beckhams had actively sought publicity and had built the ‘Beckham brand’ on the image of being a happily married couple. The Blairs and the Archers, however, were judged not to have sought publicity to project any particular image, so the promised revelations were not legitimate matters of public interest. It would seem that the existence of a non-disclosure agreement with employees offers little protection to those wishing to safeguard the secrets of their private life if those attempting to prevent publication are seen as publicity-seekers, especially if the ‘brand image’ being promoted would seem to conflict with reality.
Content by: The Made Simple Group
Join our community today
