London Borough of Croydon v Dodsworth & Ors [2017] EWHC 2257 (QB) (08 September 2017)

London Borough of Croydon v Dodsworth & Ors [2017] EWHC 2257 (QB) (08 September 2017)

The Claimant is likely to establish that publication of the confidential information should not be allowed because the information is confidential, was imparted in confidence, and unauthorised disclosure was threatened. The public interest and freedom of expression do not justify disclosure in this case.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2257 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Croydon; First Defendant: Mia Dodsworth; Second Defendant: Devika Pauline Lambert; Third Defendant: Changing Lives Now Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Continuation of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Injunction continued
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Confidential Information, Freedom of Expression, Safeguarding, Public Interest Disclosure
Confidentiality Education Law Human Rights Injunctions Confidential Information Freedom of Expression Safeguarding Public Interest Disclosure

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Croydon

Claimant

Mia Dodsworth

First Defendant

Devika Pauline Lambert

Second Defendant

Changing Lives Now Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Continuation of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants should be restrained from using, publishing, or disclosing confidential information relating to the School
  2. 2 Whether the injunction engages the right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant is likely to establish that publication of the confidential information should not be allowed because the information is confidential, was imparted in confidence, and unauthorised disclosure was threatened. The public interest and freedom of expression do not justify disclosure in this case.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued

Orders

  • Defendants are prohibited from using, publishing, communicating, or disclosing the confidential information described in the order, subject to exceptions for information that comes into the public domain and the right to apply for variation or discharge.