Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA) v Persons Unknown & Ors [2022] EWHC 1074 (QB) (09 May 2022)

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA) v Persons Unknown & Ors [2022] EWHC 1074 (QB) (09 May 2022)

The court granted an interim injunction restraining further breaches of the non-disclosure agreement by the Third Defendant, finding it necessary, appropriate, and proportionate. However, the court refused to grant a mandatory order requiring removal of the video from the First Defendant's website or to impose obligations on third parties, holding that the statutory test under section 12(3) HRA was not met in respect of the First and Second Defendants, given the prior engagement and lack of clear notice of confidentiality. The balance of justice and proportionality did not justify the wider order sought.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1074
Parties
Claimant: Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA); First Defendant: Persons Unknown Responsible for Publishing Material on the Website 'Reel News'; Second Defendant: Mr Shaun Dey; Third Defendant: Ms Claire Laycock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Urgent Out of Hours Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in part; refused in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Non Disclosure Agreements, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Human Rights Act 1998 S.12
Employment Law Media Law Civil Procedure Breach of Confidence Non Disclosure Agreements Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Human Rights Act 1998 S.12

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA)

Claimant

Persons Unknown Responsible for Publishing Material on the Website 'Reel News'

First Defendant

Mr Shaun Dey

Second Defendant

Ms Claire Laycock

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Urgent Out of Hours Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an urgent interim injunction should be granted to restrain breach of a non-disclosure agreement and require removal of published material
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 are satisfied for relief affecting freedom of expression

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted an interim injunction restraining further breaches of the non-disclosure agreement by the Third Defendant, finding it necessary, appropriate, and proportionate. However, the court refused to grant a mandatory order requiring removal of the video from the First Defendant's website or to impose obligations on third parties, holding that the statutory test under section 12(3) HRA was not met in respect of the First and Second Defendants, given the prior engagement and lack of clear notice of confidentiality. The balance of justice and proportionality did not justify the wider order sought.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in part; refused in part

Orders

  • The Third Defendant is restrained from further breaches of the non-disclosure agreement, including disclosure of confidential information or giving interviews about the subject matter.
  • The prohibition extends to supplying information to any third party as defined in the COT3 agreement.