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 anything in respect of which he had a reasonable and continuing expectation of privacy, given his own prior disclosures and the public domain status of much of the information. The proposed injunction was too broad and vague, and the threshold for interim relief was not met. Accordingly, the application for an injunction was refused.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1651
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, Post Hearing Judgment
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Public Domain, Confidential Information, Freedom of Expression
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Public Domain +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 4 Authorities cited 16 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, Post Hearing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the 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 anything in respect of which he had a reasonable and continuing expectation of privacy, given his own prior disclosures and the public domain status of much of the information. The proposed injunction was too broad and vague, and the threshold for interim relief was not met. Accordingly, the application for an injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused

Orders

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