Ps agreed that O alone could publish photos of their wedding, refusing a bid from D. D nevertheless managed to gain access to some photos taken without permission and Ps sought an intermediate injunction preventing their release until a full trial of the facts could be heard, on the basis of breach of privacy under article 10. CA denied the injunction, saying that since the event was high profile and had organised publicity, the retained element of privacy was likely to be insufficient to tilt the balance against publication; that damages would be an adequate remedy; and that, accordingly, the balance of convenience came down against prior restraint and the injunction would not be granted. Damages would suffice which might be established at a full trial.
Sedley LJ: There is no doubt that the HRA gives horizontal effect to at least article 8 because of s.12(4) which tells the court how to balance freedom of expression and freedom of publication. He said that section 12(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998 "puts beyond question the direct applicability of at least one article of the Convention as between one private party to litigation and another—in the jargon, its horizontal effect".