Advertising Standards Authority Ltd v Mitchell [2019] EWHC 1469 (QB) (11 June 2019)

Advertising Standards Authority Ltd v Mitchell [2019] EWHC 1469 (QB) (11 June 2019)

The court granted the interim injunction because the ASA was likely to establish at trial that the information was confidential and privileged, that Mr Mitchell was subject to a duty of confidence, that there was a real risk of misuse or disclosure, and that no sufficient public interest or freedom of expression defence applied. The court was satisfied it had jurisdiction and that the relief was proportionate and necessary to protect the information pending a full hearing.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1469
Parties
Intended Claimant: Advertising Standards Authority Limited; Intended Defendant: Robert Neil Whyte Mitchell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (pre Action) / Interim Application Before Claim Form Issued
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in favour of the ASA
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Legal Professional Privilege, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Jurisdiction, Reporting Restrictions
Civil Procedure Media Law Confidentiality Breach of Confidence Legal Professional Privilege Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Jurisdiction +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advertising Standards Authority Limited

Intended Claimant

Robert Neil Whyte Mitchell

Intended Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (pre Action) / Interim Application Before Claim Form Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an interim injunction restraining use or disclosure of confidential and privileged information sent by mistake
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction over the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the information is confidential and/or privileged

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the interim injunction because the ASA was likely to establish at trial that the information was confidential and privileged, that Mr Mitchell was subject to a duty of confidence, that there was a real risk of misuse or disclosure, and that no sufficient public interest or freedom of expression defence applied. The court was satisfied it had jurisdiction and that the relief was proportionate and necessary to protect the information pending a full hearing.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in favour of the ASA

Orders

  • Mr Mitchell restrained from using, publishing, communicating or disclosing the confidential and privileged information (except for specified purposes relating to the ASA complaint and related litigation) until the return date.
  • Mr Mitchell to disclose what he has done with the email, attachments, and information derived from them.