Barclay v Barclay [2020] EWHC 424 (QB) (24 February 2020)

Barclay v Barclay [2020] EWHC 424 (QB) (24 February 2020)

There is no sufficient evidential basis or urgency to justify granting an interim non-disclosure order on short notice. The claimants' delay in seeking relief and the absence of new threats or developments undermine the case for urgency. The undertakings offered by the defendants are adequate, and no injunction is warranted at this stage.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 424 (QB)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Sir Frederick Barclay; Applicant/claimant: Amanda Barclay; Respondent/defendant: Alistair Barclay; Respondent/defendant: Aidan Barclay; Respondent/defendant: Howard Barclay; Respondent/defendant: Andrew Barclay; Respondent/defendant: Philip Peters
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Application for Non Disclosure Order
Outcome
Application for interim non-disclosure order refused; undertakings accepted.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection, Reporting Restrictions
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Interim Injunctions Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Data Protection Reporting Restrictions

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

Sir Frederick Barclay

Applicant/claimant

Amanda Barclay

Applicant/claimant

Alistair Barclay

Respondent/defendant

Aidan Barclay

Respondent/defendant

Howard Barclay

Respondent/defendant

Andrew Barclay

Respondent/defendant

Philip Peters

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Application for Non Disclosure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim non-disclosure order (INDO) should be granted on short notice
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient evidential basis and urgency for the relief sought
  3. 3 Whether undertakings offered by defendants are adequate in lieu of an injunction

Ratio Decidendi

There is no sufficient evidential basis or urgency to justify granting an interim non-disclosure order on short notice. The claimants' delay in seeking relief and the absence of new threats or developments undermine the case for urgency. The undertakings offered by the defendants are adequate, and no injunction is warranted at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application for interim non-disclosure order refused; undertakings accepted.

Orders

  • No injunction granted.
  • Undertakings offered by defendants accepted in the terms offered.