lOMoARcPSD|13097948
LAWS101 Study Booklet - Summary Legal System: Legal
Method and Institutions
Legal System: Legal Method and Institutions (University of Canterbury)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
, lOMoARcPSD|13097948
Hosking v Runting (Court of Appeal, NZ)
• Main NZ case that established the existence and limbs of the tort of invasion of privacy
- Are the publicised facts private and was there a reasonable expectation that they remain
private?
- Would a reasonable person in the shoes of the plaintiff find the publicity of these facts to
be highly offensive?
- Is there a legitimate public concern that outweighs the privacy interests of the plaintiff?
• Highly Offensive
- Publicity of facts must be “humiliating or embarrassing” or “distressful” or “really
sensitive” or “otherwise harmful” (see also Andrews)
- But: common ailments are not considered sufficiently embarrassing to be highly offensive
- In some cases, whether publication is highly offensive has the same answer as the answer
to the question whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy (see also Andrews)
• Legitimate Public Concern
- It involves a balancing exercise: the greater the invasion of privacy, the greater the level
of public concern needed to avail of the defence
TVNZ v Rogers (Court of Appeal, NZ)
• Private Facts
- Information that is made known to others may retain a degree of privacy
- Facts that are public for one purpose are not public for all purposes (see also Andrews)
- Reasonable expectation is to be assessed at the time of publicity
- Circumstances of disclosure are important for reasonable expectations
• Legitimate Public Concern
- Facts that are inherently private have a greater privacy value than facts that are not
inherently private but attract a reasonable expectation of privacy
- Facts that are inherently private have a greater privacy value than facts that are not
inherently private but attract a reasonable expectation of privacy
- “Degree of journalistic latitude” is permitted to allow subject of public interest to be
explained in context
- Open justice and the importance of not letting a court operate in secrecy is a very
important consideration
- Where a video tape is played in open court, the interests of open justice may already have
been served so as to negate the legitimate public interest in publication to the media (see
also Vickery, Mahanga)
Andrews v TVNZ (Court of Appeal, NZ)
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
LAWS101 Study Booklet - Summary Legal System: Legal
Method and Institutions
Legal System: Legal Method and Institutions (University of Canterbury)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
, lOMoARcPSD|13097948
Hosking v Runting (Court of Appeal, NZ)
• Main NZ case that established the existence and limbs of the tort of invasion of privacy
- Are the publicised facts private and was there a reasonable expectation that they remain
private?
- Would a reasonable person in the shoes of the plaintiff find the publicity of these facts to
be highly offensive?
- Is there a legitimate public concern that outweighs the privacy interests of the plaintiff?
• Highly Offensive
- Publicity of facts must be “humiliating or embarrassing” or “distressful” or “really
sensitive” or “otherwise harmful” (see also Andrews)
- But: common ailments are not considered sufficiently embarrassing to be highly offensive
- In some cases, whether publication is highly offensive has the same answer as the answer
to the question whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy (see also Andrews)
• Legitimate Public Concern
- It involves a balancing exercise: the greater the invasion of privacy, the greater the level
of public concern needed to avail of the defence
TVNZ v Rogers (Court of Appeal, NZ)
• Private Facts
- Information that is made known to others may retain a degree of privacy
- Facts that are public for one purpose are not public for all purposes (see also Andrews)
- Reasonable expectation is to be assessed at the time of publicity
- Circumstances of disclosure are important for reasonable expectations
• Legitimate Public Concern
- Facts that are inherently private have a greater privacy value than facts that are not
inherently private but attract a reasonable expectation of privacy
- Facts that are inherently private have a greater privacy value than facts that are not
inherently private but attract a reasonable expectation of privacy
- “Degree of journalistic latitude” is permitted to allow subject of public interest to be
explained in context
- Open justice and the importance of not letting a court operate in secrecy is a very
important consideration
- Where a video tape is played in open court, the interests of open justice may already have
been served so as to negate the legitimate public interest in publication to the media (see
also Vickery, Mahanga)
Andrews v TVNZ (Court of Appeal, NZ)
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
