Legal Case Summary
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22
Breach of famous model’s (Naomi Campbell) reasonable expectation of privacy
Facts
The claimant was supermodel Naomi Campbell (C). She had made public statements that she did not take drugs. The defendant newspaper published articles regarding her drug addiction and showed photographs as she was leaving a group meeting for drug addicts. C sought damages for breach of confidentiality in relation to the covertly taken pictures although accepted that the newspaper was entitled to publish the fact of her addiction and treatment given her previous public statements.
Issue
C was successful at trial where it was held that the information complained of was confidential and publication was not in the public interest. The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal on the basis that the additional information of C’s medical treatment was in the public interest and necessary for the journalistic credibility of the story. C appealed to the House of Lords.
Decision/Outcome
The House of Lords held that the correct test to determine whether information was private was to consider whether a reasonable person of ordinary sensibility placed in the same situation as C would find the disclosure of the information offensive. C’s therapy related to her physical and mental health and the assurance of privacy was essential to such treatment. The details of C’s therapy therefore constituted private information which gave rise to a duty of confidentiality. Whilst the free press had a journalistic margin of appreciation in the public interest this had been exceeded. In relation to the photographs taken outside the group meeting, the Court recognised that an individual may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place and that this expectation was unjustly infringed in this case.
Updated 19 March 2026
This summary of Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22 remains legally accurate. The case is still good law and continues to be cited as a leading authority on the law of privacy and breach of confidence in English law, particularly on the reasonable expectation of privacy test and the balancing of Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Readers should note that privacy law in England and Wales has continued to develop through subsequent case law. The Supreme Court’s decision in ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5 affirmed and extended the reasonable expectation of privacy principle in the context of criminal investigations. The Misuse of Private Information tort, of which Campbell is a foundational authority, is now well-established as a distinct cause of action following Google LLC v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311. There is no new legislation that has superseded the legal principles discussed in the article, though the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR are now relevant alongside the common law framework where personal data is involved. The article provides a sound foundation for understanding the case and its immediate significance.
