DFT v TFD [2010] EWHC 2335 (QB) (27 September 2010)

DFT v TFD [2010] EWHC 2335 (QB) (27 September 2010)

The applicant is likely to establish at trial that the information is private and confidential, and that publication should not be allowed. The continuation of the interim injunction is justified to protect the applicant's Article 8 rights, particularly given the blackmail context. Anonymity is necessary, but a prohibition on reporting the existence of the order is no longer required, provided the order delineates what information may be published.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2335 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: DFT; Defendant/respondent: TFD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (privacy/blackmail) / Return Date Hearing on Continuation of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction continued until trial or further order, with anonymity maintained but prohibition on reporting the existence of the order lifted subject to delineated terms.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Blackmail, Anonymity Orders, Freedom of Expression, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Privacy Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Interim Injunctions Blackmail Anonymity Orders Freedom of Expression Open Justice +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DFT

Claimant/applicant

TFD

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (privacy/blackmail) / Return Date Hearing on Continuation of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is likely to establish at trial that the information is private and/or confidential and that publication should not be allowed
  2. 2 Whether the continuation of the interim injunction is justified under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether anonymity and reporting restrictions are necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is likely to establish at trial that the information is private and confidential, and that publication should not be allowed. The continuation of the interim injunction is justified to protect the applicant's Article 8 rights, particularly given the blackmail context. Anonymity is necessary, but a prohibition on reporting the existence of the order is no longer required, provided the order delineates what information may be published.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued until trial or further order, with anonymity maintained but prohibition on reporting the existence of the order lifted subject to delineated terms.

Orders

  • Continuation of interim injunction restraining publication of private and confidential information until trial or further order
  • Anonymity of parties to be maintained