Liz Hurley’s Privacy Claim Against Daily Mail Leads to Court Ruling
startcategory Entertainment endcategory
startsubcategory Entertainment,Business endsubcategory
startcontinent Europe endcontinent
startcountry United Kingdom endcountry
startregion England endregion
startplace London endplace
startsubplace Central London endsubplace
startimage1description The headline shows a soft pastel, Banksy‑style sketch of a newspaper with a subtle silhouette of a figure, indicating the headline “Liz Hurley ‘crushed’ by invasion of privacy, court told” without graphic detail. The image avoids harsh colors and hearts, keeping the mood professional. It hints at privacy issues through muted shading and abstract shadows.
endimage1description
startimage2description In monochrome, the illustration presents a newspaper stack with a faint human outline, symbolizing the privacy claim. The pastel wash is replaced with grayscale tones, giving a sober and reflective feel, while avoiding any depiction of suffering or distress. The scene conveys the seriousness of the case in a restrained, stylized manner.
endimage2description
starttags privacy,Liberty,DailyMail,Court,Entertainment endtags
starttext The court, sitting in the High Court of London, heard claims from seven individuals, including actress Liz Hurley, that the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday published articles that constituted “grave breaches of privacy”. The plaintiffs alleged that the newspaper had released personal information without consent, aiming to attract readership at the expense of personal dignity. The publisher, in its defence, argued that the content was newsworthy and complied with existing privacy regulations.
_2_
The judge’s ruling focused on the balance between freedom of the press and the right to privacy protected under the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. While recognising the public interest potential of the subjects’ posts, the decision noted that the outlets had not provided sufficient justification for disclosing sensitive personal details. The court concluded that the allegations lacked concrete evidence of compliance with protective legal safeguards.
_3_
Following the verdict, the plaintiffs are directed to pursue further legal recourse where appropriate, and the Daily Mail is advised to review its editorial protocols for future coverage involving personal data. The case underscores ongoing tensions between media scrutiny and individual privacy in the UK. Both parties will remain on the public docket for subsequent motions and potential appeals.
endtext endtext
Entertainment |
January 22, 2026 at 7:23 AM
The court, sitting in the High Court of London, heard claims from seven individuals, including actress Liz Hurley, that the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday published articles that constituted “grave breaches of privacy”. The plaintiffs alleged that the newspaper had released personal information without consent, aiming to attract readership at the expense of personal dignity. The publisher, in its defence, argued that the content was newsworthy and complied with existing privacy regulations.
_2_
The judge’s ruling focused on the balance between freedom of the press and the right to privacy protected under the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. While recognising the public interest potential of the subjects’ posts, the decision noted that the outlets had not provided sufficient justification for disclosing sensitive personal details. The court concluded that the allegations lacked concrete evidence of compliance with protective legal safeguards.
_3_
Following the verdict, the plaintiffs are directed to pursue further legal recourse where appropriate, and the Daily Mail is advised to review its editorial protocols for future coverage involving personal data. The case underscores ongoing tensions between media scrutiny and individual privacy in the UK. Both parties will remain on the public docket for subsequent motions and potential appeals.
