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)

The claimant failed to establish, to the required standard under s.12(3) HRA, that it was likely to succeed at trial in proving the defendants obtained or threatened to disclose confidential information. The evidence did not support a credible threat of disclosure or wrongdoing by the defendants. There were also significant failures of full and frank disclosure in the original without notice application. Accordingly, both the application to continue the interim non-disclosure order and the application for a search and seizure order were refused. The original INDO was discharged.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3527 (QB)
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 (continuation of Injunction and Search Order); Application to Discharge Injunction
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 (continuation of Injunction and Search Order); Application to Discharge Injunction

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

The claimant failed to establish, to the required standard under s.12(3) HRA, that it was likely to succeed at trial in proving the defendants obtained or threatened to disclose confidential information. The evidence did not support a credible threat of disclosure or wrongdoing by the defendants. There were also significant failures of full and frank disclosure in the original without notice application. Accordingly, both the application to continue the interim non-disclosure order and the application for a search and seizure order were refused. The original INDO was discharged.

Court Disposition

Applications refused; original interim non-disclosure order discharged.

Orders

  • Refusal to continue interim non-disclosure order against all defendants.
  • Refusal to grant search and seizure order for Mr Dent's computer.