The subjects of privacy and celebrity divorce came together in the High Court when Mr Justice Eady struck out Marco Pierre White’s privacy action against the divorce solicitors acting for his wife. It was not White’s first attack on his wife’s solicitors – he had earlier tried to have them removed from the case.
The chef said that his wife had taken private documents and correspondence for use in the divorce proceedings. In a claim against his wife (later dropped) White claimed that Mrs White had told him that her solicitors had told her to take her husband’s mail. Both Mrs White and her solicitors denied this. Marco Pierre White claimed damages for breach of confidence and privacy, wrongful interference with his property and misuse of confidential information.
All court proceedings require that documents be disclosed to the opposing parties, particularly those relating to income and assets. Spouses have greater opportunities than most to gain access to documents which have not been disclosed formally in the divorce proceedings. Mrs White had not used unlawful means to acquire the documents, and the judge found that it was proper and in accord with usual practice in divorce cases to supplement the disclosure process in this way, particularly as the solicitor denied having advised his client to intercept mail.
Claims for “misuse of private information” are a relatively new concept in English law. Supermodel Naomi Campbell’s claim against the Daily Mirror – which she won in the House of Lords and which involved photographs of her leaving Narcotics Anonymous – did not, Mr Justice Eady said, have any bearing on the case before him – “it would not be possible by any stretch of the imagination to characterise the solicitors’ receipt and retention of the documents from Mrs White in that way”, he said.
The information in the documents had been used only for the case, and had not been communicated to the world at large. There had been no misuse of the information. The documents were not “withheld in the teeth of a demand for their return” nor had any criminal offence been committed.
The judge struck out the claim as disclosing no cause of action.
