was entitled to hold the claimants had a reasonable expectation the photographs would not be published. 120 This point was discussed in Campbell v MGN ltd [2004]2, A.C 457 where the photograph of the claimant, a famous model was printed in the Daily Mirror newspaper along with a caption that read ‘ Naomi : I’m a drug addict’. The claimant, admitted there was a public interest in publishing she was a drug addict but claimed damages for breach of confidentiality and compensation under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998. 125 On appeal , the House of Lords considered the issue whether the publication of additional material was a breach of confidence and held that additional information was confidential as its publication could have caused substantial offence to a person of ordinary sensibilities . The Court further held that the claimant’s right to privacy outweighed defendant’s freedom of expression. 130 The Campbell case suggests that the published details should be no more than necessary for the story and if they offend sensibilities of an ordinary person, then the defendant has breached the right to confidence. Justice Adonyo in Asege Catherine v Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd HCCS No. 756 of 2013 135 made reference to the California civil code which stipulates that use of a person’s image without consent for commercial gain made the defendant liable in damages. My learned brother held in that case that ‘…lack of a legal regime in our jurisdiction that addresses image rights cannot be taken to mean that persons who suffer wrongs cannot seek redress from courts of law 140 when they are aggrieved.’ The judge in this case recognized personality rights as described in the California civil code and found that the publication of Asege’s picture by the defendant in its advert for gain was an infringement on her personality rights . Justice Adonyo found that every person has a right to control the use of his or her personality 145 which extends to the image and name which the defendant infringed . 5