A v B & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 496 (28 March 2002)

A v B & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 496 (28 March 2002)

The balance of convenience is now firmly against extending the stay, as the applicant has already disclosed information, there has been significant publicity, and the only party disadvantaged by a continued stay would be the successful respondent. The court will not interfere with its previous sealed order in the absence of compelling justification.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 496
Parties
Claimant/applicant: A (Male); 1st Defendant/respondent: B (A Company); 2nd Defendant/respondent: C (Female)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Further Stay Pending Appeal to House of Lords
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Stay of Proceedings, Privacy, Publication of Private Information
Media Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Stay of Proceedings Privacy Publication of Private Information

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A (Male)

Claimant/applicant

B (A Company)

1st Defendant/respondent

C (Female)

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Further Stay Pending Appeal to House of Lords

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a further stay of discharge of an injunction should be granted pending appeal to the House of Lords
  2. 2 Whether new evidence justifies reconsideration of the stay

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience is now firmly against extending the stay, as the applicant has already disclosed information, there has been significant publicity, and the only party disadvantaged by a continued stay would be the successful respondent. The court will not interfere with its previous sealed order in the absence of compelling justification.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for further stay refused
  • Applicant to pay costs summarily assessed at £4,000