High Court rules on unlawful information gathering claims against Associated Newspapers

Partner Gideon Benaim commented:

“The Judgment is 436 pages in total, so it will take time to read and fully digest Mr Justice Nicklin’s reasoning. The Judge didn’t accept the claimants’ cases in respect of unlawful information gathering on the balance of probabilities, because it required substantial inferences to be made. However, I don’t believe too much can be read into how this may impact on privacy cases more widely. It appears to be very fact specific and of course as a ‘phone hacking’ case it focused on how the information was gathered.

"Usually, privacy cases focus primarily on whether someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of certain information that has been published, and how it was obtained is not the dominant factor. If the information is private in nature, then absent a strong public interest justification for publishing it, it ought to remain private. Only time will tell, but based on what I have read so far, I don’t see this having a material impact on misuse of private information cases.

"This is an important judgment, particularly given the profile of the parties and the allegations involved, but it appears on an initial reading to be highly fact specific. The court has concluded that the evidence before it didn’t meet the threshold required to prove that unlawful information gathering took place. As Mr Justice Nicklin said in his judgment, 'suspicion, even understandable suspicion, is not proof'.

"Most privacy cases will continue to depend on whether the information is private, whether publication was justified in the public interest and, ultimately, the evidence available to the court. I don't see this decision fundamentally changing that position."

Partner Jessica Welch commented:

"This is a widely awaited decision given the subject matter and the claimants involved, but I don’t believe that the application of this judgment to privacy law generally should be overstated.

"Mr Justice Nicklin was clear that the Court’s findings relate specifically to the 57 articles that formed part of the claim and the evidence available to the specific claimants. Much of the claimants’ case rested on inference from decades-old conduct, the kind of covert activity that, by its nature, arguably leaves few direct traces. In the end, the Judge found that given the seriousness of the allegations, the claimants failed to reach the higher evidential burden required to prove them.

"However, the Judgment does not disturb the underlying privacy law framework established in earlier privacy case law, as well as the finding against Mirror Group Newspapers in 2023 of 'widespread and habitual' phone hacking and the public apology and settlement from News Group Newspapers in previous phone hacking cases, all of which stand as precedent that such claims can succeed."

Gideon and Jessica's comments were published in The Guardian and The i Paper, 7 July 2026. Gideon's comments were also published in The Times, 7 July 2026.