This post is written to promote an upcoming conference on Campbell v MGN Ltd on 19 and 20 September 2024 in London, funded by the Society of Legal Scholars and Matrix Chambers. Further details about the conference and how to register interest in participating are at the end of the post below.

Twenty years ago, on Thursday 6 May 2004, the House of Lords delivered its landmark decision in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457. The case, which famously involved the publication by the Mirror of a story about supermodel Naomi Campbell attending narcotics anonymous meetings, established the tort of misuse of private information.

Privacy law at the time was at a crucial inflection point in England and Wales. Merely seven months earlier, in Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53, [2004] 2 AC 406, the House of Lords had rejected an invitation to recognise a general invasion of privacy action in English law. While this basic position was maintained in Campbell, the tenor of the later decision is fundamentally different, with the court fashioning breach of confidence into an action protecting against the wrongful publication of private information (see at [15]). Undoubtedly, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) played a critical role in this shift. The unauthorised strip-search which led to the claim against the Home Office in Wainwright had occurred before the HRA had come into effect. In Campbell, where the Mirror’s story was published post-HRA, Lord Nicholls explicitly said that the fast growth of the protection of various aspects of privacy had been ‘spurred’ by the HRA’s enactment (at [11]). Breach of confidence had now ‘firmly shaken off the limiting constraint of the need for an initial confidential relationship’ (at [14]). And with it, a new era was heralded in.

In the years since Campbell, much ink has been spilled on the judgment and its impacts. Misuse of private information was eventually recognised as a standalone action (see Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311, [2016] QB 1003), which has flourished in its own right. Through the work of judges, practitioners and academics (with no shortage of dialogue between them) the tort has matured into adolescence. The action now has a clearly established two-stage test, with a rich body of jurisprudence to help determine: (1) whether a claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information so as to engage the tort; and (2) whether that expectation has been outweighed by the defendant’s competing rights, particularly to free expression. While some aspects of the doctrine are undoubtedly still to be clarified, there is also a better understanding of the remedies that flow from a successful misuse of private information claim and how the tort interacts with other causes of action.

We believe that the time is ripe to take stock of what Campbell has meant and look forward to what the future might hold. We are therefore delighted to announce a two-day conference to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of this seminal case.

The conference will be held in London on 19 and 20 September 2024 at Toynbee Hall (next to Aldgate East underground station). It is generously funded by the Society of Legal Scholars and Matrix Chambers.

This is not the first conference which has been dedicated to this case. Ten years ago, the legacy of Campbell was discussed in a one-day workshop held in Newcastle, with papers subsequently published in a special issue of the Journal of Media Law and an edited collection. The purpose of this year’s conference is to adopt a broader lens, exploring not just Campbell’s effect on English privacy law, but also what the case means within wider social discourse, its impact on adjacent areas such as defamation and data protection and its influence in other jurisdictions. The goal is specifically to approach Campbell and its future through a series of cross-cutting themes, for example unpacking what the case tells us about judicial method and the implications of the decision from a feminist perspective.

The conference is open to academics, practitioners and anyone interested in the decision. We particularly welcome contributions from PhD students and early career researchers, who may not have had the opportunity to form ties with the media law community. It is anticipated that there will be a dedicated PGR/ECR panel in the conference.

It is intended that the contributions will lead to the publication of a special issue of a journal following the conference.

The event will be free to attend, and there will be the option of joining either in-person or online. To facilitate in-person attendance for accepted participants from outside of London, a number of bursaries of approximately £250 will be available to cover reasonable travel and accommodation. Please indicate in your expression of interest whether you would like to apply for a bursary.

If you are interested in contributing to the conference, please send a brief (250 word max) expression of interest, outlining your paper, to Eliza Bechtold (eliza.bechtold@abdn.ac.uk), Jeevan Hariharan (j.hariharan@qmul.ac.uk), and Paul Wragg (P.M.Wragg@leeds.ac.uk) by 15 July 2024. Please include all email addresses.

Please also indicate in your expression of interest: (1) whether you would like to attend in person or join remotely; and (2) whether you would like to apply for a bursary to cover reasonable travel and accommodation expenses.

Please note that the conference will have a limited number of speaker places and travel bursaries available. We will communicate decisions as soon as possible after the deadline. 

Dr Eliza Bechtold, Lecturer, School of Law, University of Aberdeen,  Dr Jeevan Hariharan, Lecturer in Private Law, Queen Mary University of London, Professor Paul Wragg, Professor of Media Law, University of Leeds