Writing Assignment #1

JTC 412 - Communication Law

Bull v. Desporte, 2019, is a claim for misuse of private information and copyright

infringement. The claimant is Gareth Bull and the Defendant is Donna Desporte. The dispute is

that Donna Desporte published a book entitled ‘Google Me No Lies’ that revealed private

information between the claimant and the defendant. Back in 2012, Gareth Bull and his then wife

won a lottery of £41 million on the National Lottery. They gained a considerate amount of

publicity, and they purchased a villa where Gareth ended up meeting the Defendant. They began

a sexual relationship, which ended in 2017. Following the end of their relationship the Defendant

wrote her book which included in the title page, an image of the Claimant and the Defendant and

was captioned ‘The True Incredible Heartbreaking Amazing Story of a Survivor Featuring the

Relationship with £41 Million Lottery Millionaire Gareth Bull'. The claim for misuse of private

information arises out of 36 passages in the book. The Claimant alleges that his private

information was used falls into four categories being details of the sexual relationship between

the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant’s relationship with, and divorce from, his former

wife, Catherine Bull, the Claimant’s children, and the physical health of the Claimant. The

claimant seeks a permanent injunction restraining the publication of his private information and

the photographs. Donna Desporte defends the claims as she denies there was a reasonable

expectation of privacy in relation to the information published. The importance of this case is

looking at the use of private information and establishing what can be published and what is

considered private information. This case impacts the law of privacy, as it looks at private

information being published and the harm this caused to the Claimant. As well as whether the
Defendant is protected from sharing the information from her right to freedom of expression

under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This specific case is related to our course because we have gone over privacy and what

qualifies something as being rightfully private to a person. When looking at a case of privacy,

you have to look at the privacy torts, which are the four types of invasion of privacy. Publication

of embarrassing private facts, intrusion of solitude, false light, and appropriation are all the

elements that help to identify if the case was an invasion of privacy. This specific case relates to

that of appropriation, which is using a person’s name, image or likeness, without their consent,

for commercial gain. This relates to the case of Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co.

(1905) when a company published an advertisement with a testimonial that included a photo of

Paola Pavesich, without their consent. The court recognized, as a legal right, the right of privacy

through this case and the unlawfulness of using one’s image for your own commercial gain,

without their consent. It brought to law that using the image or likeness of a person, without their

consent, is an invasion of privacy. As such, it shows how Donna Desporte invaded the privacy of

Gareth Bull by using his image and likeness in her book to drive sales. It also relates to our

course with looking at embarrassing private facts, and the elements of publication and private

information. This is due to the fact that the information was published in a book and sold for

anyone to read. The information included, especially regarding his private health records and

information about his children, is information deemed to be private, so was a violation to

privacy.

The court's decision was that the Defendant failed to make out the defense of justification

in this case. As such, the claimant, Gareth Bull, succeeded in his claim of misuse of private

information and copyright infringement. Gareth Bull was awarded damages of £10,000 and
aggravated damages of £2,500, as well as a permanent injunction to restrain publication of his

private information. Damages for the unauthorized use of photographs of the claimant amounted

to £50. When looking at the damages, it was considered how the Claimant was affected by this

publication. It caused him a considerable amount of distress as a consequence of the information

relating to him, and also because of the effect it had on his family. Also, by the nature of the

private information involved, it went against Article 8. Article 8 of the convention is the right to

respect for private and family life. It claims that everyone has the right to respect for his private

and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public

authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law. The court

used article 8 to prove that the information used by the Defendant on the claimants family, was

unlawful and went against this privacy law. As such, Gareth Bull was awarded £10,000 for

damages. In regards to aggravated damages, they are compensatory in their nature. They are only

given where the conduct of the defendant has increased loss that wouldn’t have existed in the

absence of that conduct. The court used the case Broome v. Cassell (1972), in regards to this

notion. The Claimant argued that he was well identified in the book, even after the Defendant

published a redacted version, agreeing to withhold his private information and image. She acted

maliciously after she previously agreed to create a new copy, but still used the same information

about the Claimant to benefit economically. As such, Gareth Bull was awarded £2,500 for

aggravated damages.

I do believe that the court's conclusion with granting the Claimant with awards for

damages, aggravated damages, and unauthorized use of photographs, based on his claim of

misuse of private information and copyright infringement was justified. I base this conclusion off

of the Defendant going against the right of privacy, especially regarding the respect for private
and family life, and the notion of using one’s likeness without their consent. I feel Donna

Desporte invaded Gareth Bull’s privacy with publishing information regarding their sexual

relationship, his personal relationship with his former wife, his childrens information, and his

physical health, without his consent. When looking at privacy torts, she engaged in publication

of embarrassing private facts, with the publication of the book and the publication of private

information, as well as appropriation. Donna Desporte used Gareth Bull’s name, private

information, and image, to advance her book for her own personal gain. She was able to

capitalize off of his private information to sell books and get money. In response to doing this

without his consent, I feel she did misuse his private information and copyright infringement.

This case was brought upon in the UK, so it doesn’t correspond to the First Amendment rights

brought upon in the US. However, if I was comparing it as if it was, I can conclude that the

results would not infringe on First Amendment rights. This is due to the fact that even with the

First Amendment, there is still protection of privacy, especially regarding one’s medical

information, under the law of HIPPA. The claimant went against this, with publishing

information regarding his physical health in her book. Holding her accountable for these actions

wouldn’t restrict her First Amendment rights, if it was under the US law. Even in the UK, it

didn’t restrict her right to free speech, as she went against their own laws, like Article 8 of the

convention, with the right to respect for private and family life. In conclusion, I do believe that

the court's conclusion with granting the Claimant with awards for damages, aggravated damages,

and unauthorized use of photographs, based on his claim of misuse of private information and

copyright infringement was justified.

 Citation

Bull v. Desporte., EWHC 1650 QB, (2019).

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/1650.html