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 circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and unauthorised disclosure was threatened. The right to freedom of expression does not justify disclosure in these circumstances.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2257
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, Breach of Confidence, Freedom of Expression, Safeguarding in Schools
Confidentiality Education Law Human Rights Injunctions Breach of Confidence Freedom of Expression Safeguarding in Schools

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

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 disclosing confidential information relating to children and staff at the School
  2. 2 Whether the injunction would unjustifiably interfere with the right to freedom of expression

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 circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and unauthorised disclosure was threatened. The right to freedom of expression does not justify disclosure in these circumstances.

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 in the public domain and the right to apply for variation or discharge.