Kerner v WX & Anor [2015] EWHC 128 (QB) (27 January 2015)

Kerner v WX & Anor [2015] EWHC 128 (QB) (27 January 2015)

The court granted an interim injunction restraining harassment by photography, loitering, or pursuit by the identified persons unknown, as there was a real risk of repetition and a likelihood of success at trial. The court refused to grant a non-disclosure order restraining publication of identifying information in the absence of notice to the media and insufficient evidence of imminent publication or compelling urgency.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 128
Parties
Intended Claimant: Katherine Elizabeth Kerner; Represented Child: Jack Robert Michael Kerner; Intended Defendant: WX; Intended Defendant: YZ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction / Interim Relief Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in part; application for non-disclosure order refused.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Interim Injunctions, Persons Unknown, Non Disclosure Orders, Human Rights Act S12
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Harassment Interim Injunctions Persons Unknown Non Disclosure Orders Human Rights Act S12

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katherine Elizabeth Kerner

Intended Claimant

Jack Robert Michael Kerner

Represented Child

WX

Intended Defendant

YZ

Intended Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunction / Interim Relief Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain harassment by persons unknown through photography and loitering
  2. 2 Whether an interim non-disclosure order restraining publication of identifying material should be granted without notice to the media

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted an interim injunction restraining harassment by photography, loitering, or pursuit by the identified persons unknown, as there was a real risk of repetition and a likelihood of success at trial. The court refused to grant a non-disclosure order restraining publication of identifying information in the absence of notice to the media and insufficient evidence of imminent publication or compelling urgency.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in part; application for non-disclosure order refused.

Orders

  • Injunction restraining harassment by photography, videoing, loitering within 100m of the home, or pursuit of the claimants by the identified persons unknown until the return date.
  • Undertakings required as per Model Order Schedule B.