United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd v Braine & Ors [2019] EWHC 3527 (QB) (18 December 2019)

United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd v Braine & Ors [2019] EWHC 3527 (QB) (18 December 2019)

UKIP failed to establish, to the requisite standard under s.12(3) HRA, that the defendants were likely to have obtained or threatened to disclose confidential information. The evidence did not support a real and credible threat of unlawful disclosure by the defendants, nor did it justify a search and seizure order. There were also significant failures of full and frank disclosure by UKIP at the without notice hearing, including non-disclosure of material facts and misstatement of the applicable legal test. Accordingly, both the application to continue the INDO and the application for a search/seizure order were refused, and the original INDO was discharged.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3527
Parties
Claimant: United Kingdom Independence Party Limited; First Defendant: Richard Braine; Second Defendant: Tony Sharp; Third Defendant: Jeff Armstrong; Fourth Defendant: Mark Dent; Fifth Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Applications Hearing (continuation of Interim Non Disclosure Order and Search/seizure Order; Application to Discharge Original Order)
Outcome
Applications refused; original interim non-disclosure order discharged.
Legal Topics
Interim Non Disclosure Orders, Breach of Confidence, Directors' Duties, Fiduciary Duties, Conspiracy to Injure, Human Rights Act 1998 S.12, Freedom of Expression, Material Non Disclosure, Search and Seizure Orders
Civil Procedure Media Law Confidentiality Human Rights Interim Non Disclosure Orders Breach of Confidence Directors' Duties Fiduciary Duties +5 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Kingdom Independence Party Limited

Claimant

Richard Braine

First Defendant

Tony Sharp

Second Defendant

Jeff Armstrong

Third Defendant

Mark Dent

Fourth Defendant

Persons Unknown

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Applications Hearing (continuation of Interim Non Disclosure Order and Search/seizure Order; Application to Discharge Original Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence justifies continuation of an interim non-disclosure order (INDO) against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether a search and seizure order should be granted for the fourth defendant's computer
  3. 3 Whether the original INDO should be discharged for material non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

UKIP failed to establish, to the requisite standard under s.12(3) HRA, that the defendants were likely to have obtained or threatened to disclose confidential information. The evidence did not support a real and credible threat of unlawful disclosure by the defendants, nor did it justify a search and seizure order. There were also significant failures of full and frank disclosure by UKIP at the without notice hearing, including non-disclosure of material facts and misstatement of the applicable legal test. Accordingly, both the application to continue the INDO and the application for a search/seizure order were refused, and the original INDO was discharged.

Court Disposition

Applications refused; original interim non-disclosure order discharged.

Orders

  • Refusal to continue the interim non-disclosure order against all defendants.
  • Refusal to grant a search and seizure order for the fourth defendant's computer.