JQL v NTP

A social-media publication must be assessed in its full context and by the impression it conveys to an ordinary reasonable reader. Highly sensitive information about mental-health treatment and deliberate self-harm ordinarily attracts a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Article 8 and Article 10 rights must then be balanced through an intense and fact-sensitive proportionality assessment. A claim is not trivial merely because publication was short-lived or reached relatively few readers where the information is deeply private and caused real distress. A duty of confidence may arise without an express contractual relationship where information is imparted in circumstances importing confidentiality.

The claimant sued her uncle for misuse of private information and breach of confidence after he published a Facebook post referring to her treatment for mental health and self-harm. The post was available for about three hours and was read by close family members and a small number of additional people. The defendant disputed identification, meaning, seriousness, privacy, confidentiality, liability and remedy. The central issues were whether the post disclosed private information about the claimant, whether publication was justified by freedom of expression, whether the information was confidential, and what relief should follow.

1. Meaning and reference. The post had to be read in its social-media context and assessed by the impression made on an ordinary reasonable reader. The post referred to the claimant and conveyed that she had experienced mental-health difficulties, had deliberately self-harmed, and had required professional treatment. The term self-harm was understood in its ordinary sense of deliberate injury or harm to oneself, not merely conduct such as recreational drug use or alcohol consumption.
2. Seriousness and privacy. The claim crossed the required threshold of seriousness. The limited duration and scale of publication did not make disclosure of sensitive medical information trivial. The claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in information about her mental health, self-harm and treatment.
3. Article 8 and Article 10. The defendant’s purpose of supporting a family member and responding to an online dispute did not justify publication of the claimant’s medical information. The disclosure made no contribution to a debate of general interest and went far beyond a proportionate rebuke. The claimant’s Article 8 rights outweighed the defendant’s Article 10 rights. The misuse of private information claim therefore succeeded.
4. Breach of confidence. Applying the three requirements identified in Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41, the information had the necessary quality of confidence, was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and was used without authorisation. The duty arose from the circumstances and did not depend on an express contract.
5. Relief. The claimant was awarded £15,000, including general and aggravated damages. An injunction was granted in usual terms restraining disclosure of information about her mental health, psychiatric admission, diagnosis and deliberate self-harm.