A v B & Ors [2005] EWHC 1651 (QB) (13 July 2005)

A v B & Ors [2005] EWHC 1651 (QB) (13 July 2005)

The claimant failed to establish that the defendants were proposing to publish information in respect of which he retained a reasonable and continuing expectation of privacy, given his own prior disclosures and the nature of the information. The proposed injunction was too broad and imprecise. The requirements for interim relief under Cream Holdings were not met.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1651 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: A; First Defendant: B; Second Defendant: C; Third Defendant: D
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Public Domain, Confidential Information
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Freedom of Expression Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

B

First Defendant

C

Second Defendant

D

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information the defendants propose to publish
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain publication by the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's own prior disclosures affect his entitlement to privacy protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish that the defendants were proposing to publish information in respect of which he retained a reasonable and continuing expectation of privacy, given his own prior disclosures and the nature of the information. The proposed injunction was too broad and imprecise. The requirements for interim relief under Cream Holdings were not met.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused

Orders

  • No injunction granted against the second and third defendants
  • Application dismissed