Higinbotham (formerly BWK) v Teekhungam & Anor

Higinbotham (formerly BWK) v Teekhungam & Anor

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because the information sought to be protected was already firmly in the public domain due to prior litigation in Thailand and the US, the claim served no legitimate purpose, there was no real harm or substantial wrong, and the claim was brought for an improper collateral purpose of harassing the defendants. The claimant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, and the claim was Jameel abusive as it was not worth the candle.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Harlow Higinbotham (formerly BWK); First Defendant/respondent: Wipaporn Teekhungam; Second Defendant/respondent: Winton Anthony Perry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; claim struck out as abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Data Protection Act 1998, Anonymity Orders, Jameel Abuse
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Data Protection Abuse of Process Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Data Protection Act 1998 Anonymity Orders +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harlow Higinbotham (formerly BWK)

Claimant/appellant

Wipaporn Teekhungam

First Defendant/respondent

Winton Anthony Perry

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for misuse of private information, breach of confidence, and breach of Data Protection Act 1998 was an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claim had real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the claim was Jameel abusive (not worth the candle)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because the information sought to be protected was already firmly in the public domain due to prior litigation in Thailand and the US, the claim served no legitimate purpose, there was no real harm or substantial wrong, and the claim was brought for an improper collateral purpose of harassing the defendants. The claimant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, and the claim was Jameel abusive as it was not worth the candle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; claim struck out as abuse of process.

Orders

  • Claim struck out in its entirety as abuse of process.
  • Anonymity order discharged.