Privacy vs. Reputation

An English court has refused an injunction against the publication of the story of an alleged affair between a well-known football player and a teammate’s girlfriend: Terry v. Persons Unknown [2010] EWHC 119 (QB).

English law has recently given a good deal of protection to the privacy of celebrities, so some people have wondered if that protection is being reduced by this decision. Out-law.com says No.

One of the reasons (among several) for refusing the injunction in this case was that the application appeared to aim at protecting the player’s commercial sponsorships, rather than in protecting his feelings (which are described as ‘robust’). The court distinguished between protecting privacy, which is OK because mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights, and protecting reputation, which was not entitled to the same deference.

Given PIPEDA’s focus on commercial use of personal information, is this a distinction that would prevail in Canada? Does it make sense anyway?

And should the court have cared about the privacy or reputation of the other party to the alleged affair, though she was not a party to the application for an injunction?