The problem with privacy is that one person’s private affairs are often a matter of great interest to another person – which brings the law relating to privacy into head-on collision with the law relating to freedom of information and expression.

Traditionally, the courts have tried to skirt around issues relating to what is or is not an invasion of privacy, but the recent case in which Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sued Hello! Magazine, over surreptitious and unauthorised photographs of their wedding, eventually persuaded the court to recognise its role in the preservation of the right to personal privacy.

In the view of the House of Lords, photographs are similar in nature to other confidential property, such as trade secrets, and they could see no reason why the couple should not be protected from what amounted to a breach of confidence. This followed a European judgment, involving Princess Caroline of Monaco, which concluded that a public figure has the right to be protected from the publication of unauthorised photographs when they have a ‘legitimate expectation of being safe from the media’.

The attitude of the courts towards photographs is more robust than towards other material about a person, since they are regarded as inherently intrusive.

In a case involving model Naomi Campbell, the House of Lords proposed that information about a person was private if it was obviously private or if disclosure of the personal information would cause offence to an ordinary person. If information is private, then the court’s decision as to whether its disclosure is justified will depend on the relative strengths of the rights under the Human Rights Act (articles 8 and 10, which guarantee rights of respect for private life on the one hand and freedom of expression on the other) and the extent to which disclosure is in the public interest. The Lords ruled that the disclosures about Ms Campbell’s treatment for drug addiction were an unwarranted intrusion into her right to privacy.

Whilst these cases make the right to privacy seem strong, the situation is somewhat different if someone wants to prevent a ‘kiss and tell’ story, because in this case consideration must be given to the possible restriction of the person’s right to tell their story, which might conflict with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10. This argument won the day when Lord Coe failed in his attempt to prevent the publication of revelations of his affair with Vanessa Lander. Similarly, David and Victoria Beckham were unsuccessful in their application for an injunction to prevent disclosure of information about their private lives by their former nanny, even though she had signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of her contract of employment.

The law relating to the individual’s right to privacy is in something of a state of flux and it may be expected to be tested at intervals by the tabloid journals in particular, in spite of the prohibition in the code of practice of the Press Complaints Commission on photographing people in private places without consent.