WER v REW

WER v REW was an anonymised legal case in which Chris Hutcheson, represented by Hugh Tomlinson, QC, of Schillings,[1] took out an injunction to prevent Popdog Ltd from publishing details regarding his private life,[2] and was heard before Justice Sir Charles Grey in January 2009.[3] Hutcheson – Gordon Ramsay's former business partner and father-in-law[4] – gained an injunction but it was later partially lifted,[5] and ultimately overturned in the Court of Appeal, with Hutcheson being publicly named by the judge.

Background

Hutcheson had sued anonymously to prevent publication of the material; the interim injunction he received was to run either until after the eventual court hearing, or until a time otherwise determined by the court. In the event, Hutcheson and the publisher reached a mutual compromise: the latter would not print, and the former would drop their suit.[6] The following year, however, News Group Newspapers, wishing to publish the original material in The Sun, applied to have the 2009 injunction set aside.[6] The newspaper claimed to have evidence that Hutcheson was using money from Ramsay's business to support a second family.[7] Mr Justice Eady, sitting in camera in December 2010, stated that Hutcheson – called KGM due to the reporting restrictions imposed[8][9] – could not "rely on the law of privacy" to protect his personal life,[10] and stated that the 2009 injunction had expired with the parties' self-arbitration.[6] Eady said that Hutcheson ' threw away his right to keep his strange double life secret when he entered into a slanging match' with Ramsay,[7] and that as a result of the WER v R.W compromise, Hutcheson had been effectively "sitting on an interim injunction as though it gave the permanence and security of a final injunction."[11] However, the judge made no comment on the accuracy of The Sun's original allegations.[12]

Hutcheson's appeal

Eady's judgement, however, could not be reported by the UK press until the following year as a result of Hutcheson appealing to the Court of Appeal;[13] Hutcheson's solicitor argued that, whilst his client's behaviour "might well be said to be morally blameworthy" it was in no way criminal.[10][14] In their judgement, the Appeal Court upheld Eady's ruling, saying that, just because information was related to private life, "it did not necessarilly follow that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy."[15] The case has, in part, been summarised as demonstrating that if a person quarrels in public, the boundary between public and private 'will blur' legally.[16] The judges named 'KGM' as Hutcheson, and soon after ruled that their judgement could be published in almost its entirety.[13] Details of the case subsequently appeared in the Daily Mail and The Sun, and The Daily Telegraph subsequently reported that Hutcheson had fathered two children in the course of his affair.[10]

The case is one of several so-called superinjunctions dealing with the English common law position in relation to privacy and social media.[5] Here, the Court of Appeal offered guidance on the conditions in which permission to appeal would be granted where it was only of academic importance,[17] laying down three requirements: that the appeal could raise significant questions, that the defendant not be adversely affected by it, and that a full hearing would be open to all concerned parties.[18] The Guardian described the outcome of the case as "a further setback to the power of privacy orders to restrict reporting," coming as it did the day after Ryan Giggs was named in Parliament as also having brought a similar injunction over allegations of an affair.[14]

See also

References
  1. "Injunctions - News - Law Society Gazette".
  2. "Society of Editors, Fighting for media freedom". www.societyofeditors.co.uk. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
  3. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Culture, Media and Sport Committee (23 February 2010). Press standards, privacy and libel: second report of session 2009-10, Vol. 2: Oral and written evidence. The Stationery Office. pp. 223–. ISBN 978-0-215-54407-0.
  4. "Society of Editors, Fighting for media freedom".
  5. Laura Scaife (20 November 2014). Handbook of Social Media and the Law. CRC Press. pp. 29–. ISBN 978-1-317-75479-4.
  6. "Injunctions | News | Law Society Gazette". Law Society Gazette. Retrieved 2017-03-11.
  7. "Ramsay's father-in-law loses bid to keep his second family secret". 26 May 2011.
  8. Iain Goldrein (13 April 2012). Privacy Injunctions and the Media: A Practice Manual. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 807–. ISBN 978-1-84731-928-9.
  9. Butterworth, Siobhain (2011-08-05). "Superinjunctions, gagging orders and injunctions: the full list". the Guardian. Retrieved 2017-03-11.
  10. "Gordon Ramsay's father in law 'fathered two children by a mistress'". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-03-11.
  11. "Society of Editors, Fighting for media freedom". www.societyofeditors.org. Retrieved 2017-03-11.
  12. "Ramsay's father-in-law loses bid to keep his second family secret". The Independent. 2011-05-26. Retrieved 2017-03-25.
  13. "No privacy for Ramsay father-in-law - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk". BelfastTelegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-03-11.
  14. Bowcott, Owen (2011-05-24). "Gordon Ramsay's father-in-law fails to retain superinjunction". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-03-11.
  15. Mark Hanna; Mike Dodd (29 March 2012). McNae's Essential Law for Journalists. OUP Oxford. pp. 313–. ISBN 978-0-19-960869-0.
  16. Robert Pearce; Warren Barr (2014). Pearce & Stevens' Trusts and Equitable Obligations. Oxford University Press. pp. 134–. ISBN 978-0-19-964445-2.
  17. "Hutcheson (formerly known as WER) v Popdog Ltd (formerly known as REW) | LexisWeb". lexisweb.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-03-11.
  18. "Practice | New Law Journal". www.newlawjournal.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-03-11.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.