Naomi Campbell awarded damages for breach of confidentiality and compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998

Campbell –v- Mirror Group Newspapers [2002] EWHC 499 (QB) – Queen's Bench Division – Morland J. – 27/03/02

Issue

Whether Naomi Campbell was entitled to damages for breach of confidence and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 for publication of articles and photographs in The Mirror giving details of her drug addiction and therapy.

Naomi Campbell, the international fashion model, brought an action against the Mirror Group Newspapers for both breach of confidentiality and compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of certain articles and photographs published in The Mirror newspaper. The articles revealed that she was attending meetings of Narcotics Anonymous to beat her drug addiction. The photographs showed her leaving a NA meeting in Chelsea. Naomi Campbell accepted that the Mirror was entitled to publish the fact that she was a drug addict and was undergoing therapy, but did not accept that they were entitled to publish details of when therapy was taking place and her attendance at NA meetings. She maintained that these were private and confidential matters and that there was no overriding public interest justifying their publication.

The court considered the issue of breach of confidentiality first, deciding that the details of Naomi Campbell's attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings did qualify as confidential as they were imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence and the publication of these details was detrimental to her. The details and photographs were obtained surreptitiously from an undisclosed source; given the confidential nature of the information, that source owed Naomi Campbell a duty of confidentiality which had been breached.

On the claim under the Data Protection Act 1998, the court held that the details of Naomi Campbell's therapy, including the photographs, constituted sensitive personal data within the Act and that the Mirror was in breach of the Act because the method used to obtain the information was unfair and was an unwarranted intrusion into Naomi Campbell's private life.

The court then went on to comment more generally on privacy and Press intrusion. It asserted that while aspects of celebrities' private lives do enter the public domain, journalists are not entitled to publish every detail of their private lives. The public had a right to know that Naomi Campbell had been misleading them by her denials of drug addiction, but there was no overriding public interest under the European Convention on Human Rights or under the Data Protection Act in disclosing, in breach of confidence, sensitive personal information.

Naomi Campbell was entitled to damages for breach of confidentiality and compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998. She was granted damages of £2,500 for the distress and injury to her feelings together with aggravated damages of £1,000 because the newspaper had published an article belittling her claim and calling her a "chocolate soldier".

For further information, please contact Tim Hardy at tim.hardy@cms-cmck.com or on +44 (0)20 7367 2533.