LegalDay - Legal News and Links Legal Recruitment Legal Forms

Defamation and Privacy Film and Television
LegalDay - News and Links for UK Law

Prior Restraint - Tillery Valley Foods Vs Channel 4 Television and Shine Ltd - Human Rights Act 1998 - Defamation

LegalDay Home Cases CurrentIssues LegalPractice Jobs News SiteMap Search LegalDay Search+

   

Contact   Privacy  Advertise  Use Our Content  Visitor List  Publish on LegalDay  Work for LegalDay  RSS/XML  Add to Google  Add to Yahoo AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Click Here for the Latest Legal News

20 May 2004

Michael Simkins

http://www.simkins.co.uk

Defamation and Privacy Film and Television

Established Prior Restraint Principles Applied In Novel Breach Of Confidence Action: Tillery Valley Foods V Channel 4 Television And Shine Ltd

Established Prior Restraint Principles Applied In Novel Breach Of Confidence Action: Tillery Valley Foods V Channel 4 Television And Shine LtdIn a judgment handed down on 11 May by Mr Justice Mann, the High Court rejected an application, unless certain conditions were met, to restrain broadcast of a Despatches programme made by Shine Ltd for Channel 4.

The claimant, Tillery Valley Foods, sold chilled frozen meats to the healthcare and public sector markets. The programme was based on the investigations of a journalist who had posed as a factory worker at one of the claimant's premises and had taken secret footage as part of a report on allegations of bad and unhygienic practice on the part of TVF. TVF applied for an injunction postponing the broadcast of the programme until it had been given a chance to view parts of the footage taken at the factory, and respond to the allegations made on the programme, which it denied.

TVF argued that the activities of the undercover journalist amounted to a breach of his duties of trust and confidence, and the film recorded by him constituted confidential information. TVF conceded that the public interest justified the publication of the allegations but argued that the extent to which use could be made of confidential information in the public interest was a balancing exercise. TVF said that part of that exercise should involve giving the company a right of reply, as provided for in the Programme Code, and that this should be taken into account in deciding whether the footage should be broadcast.

The judge applied section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 which lays particular stress on the importance of freedom of expression where applications are made to restrain publication of information. He did not think there was any realistic prospect of success for TVF's action. He rejected TVF's contention that the information captured on the secret footage was self-evidently confidential information. The claimant could not rely on the employment contract which the investigative journalist had signed barring the disclosure of confidential information, because the judge found that the information at issue lacked the essential quality of confidence.

However, the judge considered that even if the information was confidential, there was a clear public interest in its disclosure, and the Programme Code did not assist since it was merely a code of practice and not an embodiment of law. There was therefore no right of reply which the court should uphold in these circumstances.

The judge concluded that this was really a defamation action dressed up as one for breach of confidence, and therefore dismissed it applying the long established principle of defamation law which rules out any prior restraint of defamatory material where there is an intention on the part of the defendant to justify it (ie to prove that material published was true).

Jonathan Coad
206




This update is © Michael Simkins LLP. It is for general guidance only. Legal advice should be sought before taking action in relation to specific matters. Where reference is made to Court decisions facts referred to are those reported as found by the Court.

Visit our website at http://www.simkins.co.uk or contact us at earlywarnings@simkins.com for more information about Michael Simkins LLP media law services.




Legal Day Table
Jobs Now

LEGAL DIRECTOR
Sought for challenging in-house position with Myspace, the online space which has revolutionized the way people interact, as sole attorney in their London office
More >>

HEALTHCARE LAWYER
With at least 5 years PQE sought by Capsticks, a leading healthcare practice, to drive forward the development of their Birmigham based office
More >>

PI PARALEGAL
Required by Plexus Law, a specialist PI firm, to provide in-house support to the Motor Claims Department in their Folkstone offices
More >>

NETWORK ENGINEER
Sought by Personnel 2000 for their client, an international banking insurance provider, based in the Cayman Islands
More >>

LEGAL SECRETARY
Required by Law Choice for their client, a prestigious US law firm, to work for 2 partners in their Dubai offices
More >>

Legalday Related Pages

Libel & Defamation Links
Media Law
Privacy

Contact

Michael Simkins
http://www.simkins.co.uk

More Commentaries From
Michael Simkins

New Maternity Rights
12 April 2007

Managed Service Companies
11 April 2007

Legal Privilege - When It Applies
30 March 2007

More Commentaries from
Michael Simkins


Author/Firm Profile
Michael Simkins

Legalday Home Recently On LegalDay Browse Archives By Date Disclaimer

© Day x Day Media Ltd 2006 - All worldwide rights strictly reserved