Ferdinand v MGN – a “Kiss n’ Tell” public interest defence succeeds – Lorna Skinner

2 October 2011 by

Ferdinand v Mgn Ltd (Rev 2) [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB) – Read judgment

In the first “misuse of private information” trial against a newspaper since Max Mosley in 2008, Mr Justice Nicol dismissed a claim brough by England and Manchester United footballer Rio Ferdinand against the “Sunday Mirror”.

The Judge found that, although the claimant’s Article 8 rights to private and family life were engaged, there was a public interest in correcting a false image promoted by the claimant.  It was also held that the article contributed to a debate as to the claimant’s fitness to be a role model in the light of his appointment as England football captain.

The media will see the case as an important turning point in the evolution of privacy law and a vindication of their “right” to expose the behaviour of “cheating footballers”.  Others will see the decision as a disconcerting departure signalling a return to the approach taken in cases such as Woodward v Hutchins ([1977] 1 WLR 760) and Flitcroft([2003] QB 195).

The Facts

Mr Ferdinand is a well known professional footballer with a distinguished playing career and the frequent subject of tabloid stories.  The case concerned a story in the “Sunday Mirror” on 25 April 2010 concerning his relationship with Carly Storey, a woman he had first met the 1990s when they were both teenagers.   According to the article they had drifted apart, then resumed contact for a time.  The last time they had met was in 2005 but they had been in communication by telephone and text message between 2007 and early 2010.

Their last contact was in February 2010, shortly after Mr Ferdinand was appointed the captain of the England football team.  This followed the sacking of John Terry after his notorious unsuccessful injunction application ([2010] EWHC 119 (QB)).

After their last contact, Ms Storey went to Max Clifford and, two months later, the article was published.  She was paid £16,000.  No prior notification of the publication was given to Mr Ferdinand or his advisors.

The Decision

The judge applied the standard “two part test”: first was the information in question in principle protected by Article 8?  Second, if so, the Court has to conduct a “balancing exercise” to decide which of Articles 8 and 10 (the right to freedom of expression) should prevail [38] to [42]

The defendant argued that the information in the article was not subject to a “reasonable expectation of privacy” because in earlier times Mr Ferdinand and Ms Story had met in public places [45].  It was also argued that

the Claimant is a public figure in a broad sense and, as such, he must accept and expect that his actions will be more closely scrutinised by the media …. [In addition] explicit details of the Claimant’s sex life were already in the public domain and the Claimant could no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this type of information [47]

These arguments were rejected by the Judge who held that, the information in the article was, in principle, protected by Article 8 [51].   He said that it was

not necessary to consider whether, in an extreme case there would be some merit in the argument that widespread and extensive discussion by a person of similar aspects of their private life would disentitle them to have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  The present case comes nowhere near that extreme [58]

The Judge, therefore, went on to consider the “balancing exercise”.  He noted that “one facet of the public interest can be correcting a false image, referring to the PCC Code and to Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 AC 457 [65].

The Defendant argued that the Claimant had “projected an image of himself as a reformed character” and the published information showed that this was false [72].   The Claimant argued that no such “image” had been projected and that, in contrast to the Campbell case there was no “public lie” which required exposure.

The Judge held that there was a “public interest in this article” [84].  As a result of an interview given in the “News of the World” some years earlier the Claimant had

projected an image of himself and, while that image persisted, there was a public interest in demonstrating (if it were to be the case) that the image is false  [85]

A further factor in the case was the Claimant’s appointment as captain of the England football team [87].  The Judge said that appointment as England captain “carried with it an expectation of high standards” [89] and that there were “many who would … see the captain at least of the England football team as a role model” [90]

The Judge held that the article “reasonably contributed” to a debate as to whether the Claimant was suitable for role of England captain: “his relatively recent past failings could legitimately be used to called into question his suitability for the role” [98]

He concluded that, overall “the balancing exercise favours the Defendant’s right of freedom of expression over the Claimant’s right of privacy”. [105]


The editor of the “Sunday Mirror”, Tina Weaver, understandably welcomed the decisionsaying

We are pleased the judge ruled that Mr Ferdinand had perpetuated a misleading public image and the Sunday Mirror was entitled to correct this impression.  There has never been greater scrutiny of the media than now, and we applaud this ruling in recognising the important role a free press has to play in a democratic society

The decision does not, however, sit comfortably with contemporary perception of privacy law: what was published concerned a “relationship” which had begun when the parties were teenagers but where they had, at the time of the article, not met for nearly 5 years.  The “false image” that was being corrected was, to say the least, rather vague: that of being a “family man” who had cast aside his past wild ways.

There are obvious difficulties with the judge’s analysis.  In contrast to the Naomi Campbell case, it was not suggested that the Claimant had actually made any false public statement.  Rather, what was being corrected was the “image” that he was “reformed” – an image which was said to be falsified by text message contact with someone he had known since he was a teenager.

The decision in relation to “role models” is also surprising.  It appears that the judge took the view that because some people think that an England football captain is a “role model” then anyone who accepts the job must accept a greater degree of intrusion into his private life.  The publication of the article some months after the Claimant’s appointment was said to contribute to a debate as to his suitability to be this kind of role model.

Overall the decision seems to represent a retrograde step in the development of privacy law.  The “public interest” identified was very weak.  What has been protected is not, in any true sense, “public interest journalism” but is much more akin to what Baroness Hale once called “vapid tittle tattle”.

The Judge refused permission to appeal but the Claimant indicated that he would renew his application before the Court of Appeal.  It will be interesting to see what that court makes of the judgment.

This post by Lorna Skinner originally appeared on Inforrm’s Blog and is reproduced here with permission and thanks.


  1. John says:

    The April 2010 Sunday Mirror story was not hugely interesting, but nor was there any compelling reason not to publish it. The Mirror would have been furious if Ferdinand had won, and argued that it was another example of lawyers filling their boots in the name of “human rights”. As it was, Ferdinand spent an estimated £500,000 on attempting to prevent the further publication of a story that had already been published. Weird. He could have saved himself the trouble and bought a couple of Bentleys, instead of the school fees and skiing holidays of m’learned friends, who are the authors of this blog. Better luck next time, chaps.

  2. Because the public has an insatiable appetite for invasive tittle tattle and gossip does not make that tittle tattle in the Public Interest.

    I am surprised leave to appeal was refused and in any event if Convention rights were raised as they were in this case leave to appeal is automatic is it not?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Family life fatal accidents act Fertility FGM Finance fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Germany Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection hammerton v uk happy new year Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII hereditary disorder Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interim remedies international international criminal court international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College koran burning Labour Lady Hale LASPO Law Pod UK Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence limestone pavements lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Sumption Lord Taylor luftur rahman MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: