This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/14/royal-butler-paul-burrell-go-ahead-for-privacy-claim-max-clifford

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Royal butler Paul Burrell gets go-ahead for privacy claim against Max Clifford Royal butler Paul Burrell gets go-ahead for privacy claim against Max Clifford
(34 minutes later)
Disgraced PR guru Max Clifford has failed to block a privacy claim brought against him by former royal butler Paul Burrell. The disgraced PR guru Max Clifford has failed to block a privacy claim brought against him by the former royal butler, Paul Burrell.
Clifford, currently serving an eight-year sentence for sex offences, has branded Burrell’s £50,000 high court action for breach of confidence and misuse of private information as an “affront to common sense”.Clifford, currently serving an eight-year sentence for sex offences, has branded Burrell’s £50,000 high court action for breach of confidence and misuse of private information as an “affront to common sense”.
Burrell says that he hired Clifford in 2001 to limit bad press coverage about him but, rather than stopping stories, the publicist passed on material to the now-defunct News of the World. Burrell says that he hired Clifford in 2001 to limit bad press coverage about him but, rather than stopping stories, the publicist passed on material to the now-defunct News of the World. Clifford’s case is that their agreement was for him to sell information to a newspaper.
Clifford’s case is that their agreement was for him to sell information to a newspaper. Last month, Clifford’s counsel, Lorna Skinner, told Mr Justice Mann in London that the case was brought outside the legal time limit and would be a waste of court resources. But on Tuesday the judge refused to strike out the claim.
Last month, Clifford’s counsel, Lorna Skinner told Mr Justice Mann in London that the case was brought outside the legal time limit and would be a waste of court resources.
But on Tuesday the judge refused to strike out the claim.
Clifford so far faces a costs bill for the action – which will be tried in January if it does not settle – of around £28,000.Clifford so far faces a costs bill for the action – which will be tried in January if it does not settle – of around £28,000.
He sent a fax of a personal letter written to him by Burrell to the NotW editor, Rebekah Brooks, in November 2002 - the day after Burrell was acquitted at the Old Bailey of stealing items belonging to the late Princess Diana. Brooks passed it on to the paper’s royal correspondent, Clive Goodman. He sent a fax of a personal letter written to him by Burrell to the then NotW editor, Rebekah Brooks, in November 2002 – the day after Burrell was acquitted at the Old Bailey of stealing items belonging to the late Princess Diana. Brooks passed it on to the paper’s royal correspondent, Clive Goodman.
The outrageousness of it is that Clifford was retained to keep secrets, not to tell them to the mediaThe outrageousness of it is that Clifford was retained to keep secrets, not to tell them to the media
Skinner described its content, about Burrell’s relationship with the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, as mainly “tittle-tattle” which was not published and which Burrell himself put in a book a year later. Skinner described its content, about Burrell’s relationship with the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, as mainly “tittle-tattle”, that was not published and which Burrell himself put in a book a year later.
Putting the real value of the case at less than £10,000, she said there was no evidence of any financial benefit for Clifford and that the litigation was a “costs-driven exercise”.Putting the real value of the case at less than £10,000, she said there was no evidence of any financial benefit for Clifford and that the litigation was a “costs-driven exercise”.
Burrell’s counsel, William Bennett, said: “Clifford says that Burrell should be sent from this court with his tail between his legs and receive no vindication having failed in his claim – which was that Clifford had been guilty of a very, very serious misuse of private information and confidence.Burrell’s counsel, William Bennett, said: “Clifford says that Burrell should be sent from this court with his tail between his legs and receive no vindication having failed in his claim – which was that Clifford had been guilty of a very, very serious misuse of private information and confidence.
“The outrageousness of it is that Clifford was retained to keep secrets, not to tell them to the media, and it is so serious because, if one goes back to 2002, the worst person in the UK for this to be sent to is Rebekah Brooks.“The outrageousness of it is that Clifford was retained to keep secrets, not to tell them to the media, and it is so serious because, if one goes back to 2002, the worst person in the UK for this to be sent to is Rebekah Brooks.
“It is all very well saying it has only been sent to one person, but when that was the editor of the News of the World, the fax was being sent to the biggest-selling Sunday tabloid in the country, which adds to the grossness of the misuse of the private information.” “It is all very well saying it has only been sent to one person but when that was the editor of the News of the World, the fax was being sent to the biggest-selling Sunday tabloid in the country, which adds to the grossness of the misuse of the private information.”
Burrell was not in court for the decisionBurrell was not in court for the decision