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

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

The claimants failed to demonstrate a clear and compelling justification for urgency or necessity for an interim non-disclosure order. The evidential basis for risk of misuse or disclosure had not materially changed since discovery of the recordings. The undertakings offered by the defendants were sufficient and reasonable. No injunction was warranted on the facts presented.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 424
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, Non Disclosure Orders, Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Interim Injunctions Non Disclosure Orders Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Data Protection

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 the claimants have demonstrated urgency and necessity for injunctive relief
  3. 3 Whether undertakings offered by the defendants are sufficient in lieu of an injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to demonstrate a clear and compelling justification for urgency or necessity for an interim non-disclosure order. The evidential basis for risk of misuse or disclosure had not materially changed since discovery of the recordings. The undertakings offered by the defendants were sufficient and reasonable. No injunction was warranted on the facts presented.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • No injunction granted.
  • Defendants' undertakings accepted in the terms offered.