Mills v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EMLR 957
Interim injunction discharged regarding publication of photographs of celebrity home
Facts
The claimant was Heather Mills who was publicly associated with Sir Paul McCartney. She had contracted to buy a new house and was anxious to ensure that the address of the house did not become public for security reasons. She sought an undertaking from The Sun newspaper that it would not publish photographs or otherwise identify her property. The editor refused and reserved the right to publish the story if it was published elsewhere. The claimant obtained an interim injunction.
Issues
The claimant subsequently applied for the interim injunction to be continued. She submitted that publication of her intended residence would be a breach of confidence and violate her right to private life and home under Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights. She also submitted that the threshold for the interim injunction is that the claimant has a real possibility of success at trial and the grant of interim relief was justified because, inter alia, there was no public interest in the publication of the information. The Court was required to consider whether the address of a celebrity could be protected as confidential information.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that the mere publication of an address was not confidential or an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The risk to the claimant was slight as it was already well known that she lived in the town and pictures of her previous home had already been published. Accordingly, because evidence of potential harm to the claimant was insufficient, her right to private life and home did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression of the defendant and the injunction was accordingly discharged.
281 words
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the decision in Mills v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EMLR 957. The core principles remain broadly relevant to the development of English privacy and breach of confidence law. However, readers should note that the legal landscape in this area has developed substantially since 2001. In particular, the balancing exercise between Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights has been refined considerably by subsequent case law, most notably Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 and Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446, which expanded the circumstances in which private information — including location and home address — may attract protection. The threshold test for interim injunctions in privacy and confidence cases is now governed by section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires the applicant to satisfy the court that they are likely to succeed at trial; this was clarified in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44. The misuse of private information is now recognised as a distinct tort in English law following Google LLC v Vidal-Hall [2015] EWCA Civ 311. This summary remains useful as an illustration of an early post-Human Rights Act case, but it should not be treated as a definitive statement of the current law on privacy injunctions or the protection of home addresses.
