Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22

Citation

• Full case name: Campbell (Appellant) v MGN Limited (Respondents)
• Neutral citation: [2004] UKHL 22
• Court: House of Lords
• Judgment date: 6 May 2004
• Panel: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
• Subject: breach of confidence; misuse of private information; Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Facts

The claimant was an internationally known fashion model who had publicly stated that, unlike others in her industry, she did not take drugs. That statement was untrue.

The Daily Mirror published articles revealing that she was a drug addict and was receiving treatment through Narcotics Anonymous. The articles went further: they gave details of the treatment she was receiving, and were accompanied by photographs taken covertly in the street as she left a meeting.

She sued for breach of confidence. She accepted that the newspaper was entitled to publish the fact of her addiction and the fact that she was receiving treatment, because she had put the subject into the public domain by denying it. Her complaint was directed at the additional material.

Issue

Where a person has publicly misled the world about a matter, how far may a newspaper go in setting the record straight before the publication becomes an actionable interference with private life?

The House had to decide how the claimant’s right to respect for private life under Article 8 should be balanced against the newspaper’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10, and what the cause of action had become now that the old requirement of a confidential relationship had fallen away.

Decision

The House of Lords allowed the appeal by a majority of three to two. Lord Hope, Baroness Hale and Lord Carswell were in the majority; Lord Nicholls and Lord Hoffmann dissented. The orders made by the trial judge were restored.

All five members of the House agreed on the framework. The cause of action no longer depended on a pre-existing relationship of confidence: what mattered was whether the information was such that the person affected had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of it, and if so, whether the interest in publishing it outweighed that expectation. The two Convention rights start on an equal footing and neither has automatic priority; the comparative importance of each in the particular case has to be weighed.

The majority held that the details of the therapy and the covert photographs crossed the line. Publishing that the claimant was an addict and was seeking help was justified by the need to correct her public denial. Publishing where and how she was being treated, and pictures of her leaving, added little of public value and risked deterring her from continuing with the treatment.

Ratio decidendi

Breach of confidence in this context protects private information as such. The question is whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, and then whether the publisher’s Article 10 right outweighs the claimant’s Article 8 right on the facts. Neither right takes precedence in the abstract; the exercise is one of intense focus on the individual pieces of information in dispute, so that publication may be justified as to some of the material and not as to the rest.

Why it matters for insurance

Campbell is the foundation of the modern privacy claim in England and Wales, and privacy claims are an insured exposure. Media liability policies, publishers’ and broadcasters’ combined covers and some professional indemnity and cyber wordings respond to claims for misuse of private information; others exclude them, or cover defamation but not privacy. The distinction is easy to miss on a schedule and expensive to discover after a claim.

It also matters for anyone who handles personal information about identifiable people, which now means most businesses. A privacy claim is not the same thing as a data protection claim, and a policy that answers one does not necessarily answer the other. Where a business publishes content, runs surveillance, or holds sensitive records about customers or staff, both routes should be checked against the wording.

For brokers the practical point is the trigger and the definition. Privacy wordings vary widely in how they define a wrongful act, whether defence costs sit inside or outside the limit, and whether they respond to claims arising from material published before inception. Those are placement questions, not claims questions, and they are much cheaper to settle at renewal.

See also

• Gulati v MGN — damages for misuse of private information without financial loss
• Jameel v Dow Jones — abuse of process where very little is at stake
• Rolfe v Veale Wasbrough Vizards — the de minimis threshold in data breach claims
• Lloyd v Google — representative actions and damages for loss of control of data

References

• Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 (House of Lords, 6 May 2004)
• Human Rights Act 1998, section 12
• European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 8 and 10

Frequently asked questions

What did Campbell v MGN actually decide?

By a majority of three to two the House of Lords allowed Naomi Campbell's appeal and restored the trial judge's orders. The newspaper was entitled to publish that she was a drug addict receiving treatment, because she had publicly denied taking drugs, but publishing the details of her therapy and covertly taken photographs of her leaving a meeting went further than was justified.

Is misuse of private information the same as breach of data protection law?

No. They are separate causes of action and they can be pleaded together on the same facts. Misuse of private information is a common law claim developed from breach of confidence; data protection claims arise under statute. Insurance wordings do not always cover both, which is why the definitions in a media liability or cyber policy repay reading.

Does business insurance cover privacy claims?

Sometimes. Media liability and some cyber and professional indemnity wordings respond to claims for misuse of private information, but the scope varies a great deal and some policies cover defamation while excluding privacy. It is a wording question that should be settled before a claim arises, not after.

This page is insurance information for UK businesses, not legal advice. It summarises a reported judgment and explains why insurance buyers and brokers refer to it; it is not a substitute for reading the judgment or taking advice on your own facts. Case summaries are necessarily short and omit detail. Position stated as at August 2026.

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 724952). This page is general information, not advice on a specific policy.