Earlier this week in Tillery Valley Foods v Channel Four Television [2004] EWHC 1075 (Ch) Mr Justice Mann refused to grant an interim injunction to stop the broadcasting of a television programme which, Tillery alleged, contained confidential information that should not be publicly aired. Tillery, a subsidiary of French company Sodexho that supplied food to National Health Service hospitals, had been suspected of failing to comply with health and hygiene standards. Channel Four proposed to broadcast a programme, based on investigative journalism, which contained secretly filmed footage taken by a journalist who worked undercover as an employee of Tillery.

Refusing to grant an injunction, the Court took the view that there was no confidential information to protect. Taking the view that this was a defamation action in disguise, the court considered that the filmed activities did not include anything that could be characterised as confidential, for example trade secrets. There was also a human rights issue: under the Human Rights Act 1998, s.12(3) no injunction would be granted to prevent publication where there was little likelihood of Tillery succeeding at the full trial.

The IPKat notices that there is a delicate balance of competing public interests on these facts. There is an obvious public interest in protecting hospital patients against being poisoned by bad food; but there is a countervailing public interest in patients not being discouraged from eating food without which their recovery may be hampered.

Hospital dinners here and here
Sinister ingredients here
WATCH THAT FRENCH CUISINE, NURSE WATCH THAT FRENCH CUISINE, NURSE Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, May 21, 2004 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. The IPKat assumes of course that patients need revelations like this to put them off NHS food.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.