Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Beckham v Mirror Group News

348 words (1 pages) Case Summary

14th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Beckham v Mirror Group News Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 307

Interim injunction granted regarding publication of photographs of celebrity home


David and Victoria Beckham invoked s12 Human Rights Act 1998 to seek an interim injunction to prevent the publication of unauthorised photographs of their newly purchased house.


The claimants were subject to considerable media interest and sought the injunction due to concerns over security and because the photographs constituted an invasion of privacy. They were granted an interim injunction. The defendants applied for variation of the injunction to provide them with a cross undertaking that if and when the claimants should consent to publication in the future, it would be given advance notice of that fact.


The defendant’s application to vary the injunction was refused by the Court. Such a cross undertaking places a wholly unrealistic restriction on the claimants’ freedom of action and freedom of choice with regard to any future compromise of their privacy. The Court referred to s12(4)(a)(i) Human Rights Act 1998 which required it to consider the importance of the defendant’s freedom of expression and, in particular, journalistic material which was, or was about to become, available to the public. However, the defendant could not rely on this section in the circumstances given that their desire to vary the injunction by way of a cross-undertaking was a method for the defendant to obtain a commercial advantage regarding future publication of the photographs. The circumstances of the claimants were contrasted with those of the claimants in Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No. 1) [2001] Q.B. 967 where the claimants had gained a commercial advantage by selling their privacy rights to OK! magazine and their wedding could therefore in no way be considered a private affair.

280 words

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles