Harrods Ltd. v Times Newspaper Ltd. & Ors

Harrods Ltd. v Times Newspaper Ltd. & Ors

Disclosure should be limited to documents relevant to the specific confidential information published and the circumstances of Mr Simonin and Mr Decouvelaere, as the claimant undertook not to require proof of the general thesis of false public image or denials. The public interest defence does not entitle a defendant to a roving inquiry into matters not known at publication unless necessary to defend against injunctive relief sought. The judge's order for wider disclosure is no longer justified given the claimant's undertaking and narrowed relief sought.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Harrods Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Times Newspaper Ltd & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order on Disclosure in Breach of Confidence Action
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Disclosure, Public Interest Defence, Injunctions
Civil Procedure Media Law Employment Law Breach of Confidence Disclosure Public Interest Defence Injunctions

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrods Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Times Newspaper Ltd & Ors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order on Disclosure in Breach of Confidence Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defendant in a breach of confidence action can rely on information not known at the time of publication to support a public interest defence
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of documents relating to employment terminations is relevant to the pleaded issues
  3. 3 Whether the scope of disclosure should be limited to information relevant to the specific confidential information published

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure should be limited to documents relevant to the specific confidential information published and the circumstances of Mr Simonin and Mr Decouvelaere, as the claimant undertook not to require proof of the general thesis of false public image or denials. The public interest defence does not entitle a defendant to a roving inquiry into matters not known at publication unless necessary to defend against injunctive relief sought. The judge's order for wider disclosure is no longer justified given the claimant's undertaking and narrowed relief sought.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for disclosure varied: disclosure limited to documents relating to Mr Simonin and Mr Decouvelaere only
  • Claimant's undertaking regarding proof of general thesis to be recorded in the order