HCE v UEH & Anor [2026] EWHC 33 (KB) (12 January 2026)

HCE v UEH & Anor [2026] EWHC 33 (KB) (12 January 2026)

The claimant established a strongly arguable case for breach of confidence as the defendants intentionally and without authorisation accessed, examined, and retained confidential information. The balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages justified interim relief, including delivery up or destruction of the data. The defendants' conduct was arguably a blackmail attempt. Article 10 ECHR and section 12(3) HRA 1998 were not engaged.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 33 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: HCE; First Defendant: UEH; Second Defendant: UEH Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Interim Application for Non Disclosure Order / Interim Relief Hearing
Outcome
Interim non-disclosure order granted in favour of the claimant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Breach of Confidence, Data Breach, Blackmail, Anonymity Orders
Confidentiality Data Protection Media Law Interim Injunctions Breach of Confidence Data Breach Blackmail Anonymity Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HCE

Claimant

UEH

First Defendant

UEH Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application for Non Disclosure Order / Interim Relief Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to interim non-disclosure relief against the defendants for unauthorised access and retention of confidential information
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' conduct amounts to a breach of confidence and/or blackmail attempt
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting interim relief

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant established a strongly arguable case for breach of confidence as the defendants intentionally and without authorisation accessed, examined, and retained confidential information. The balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages justified interim relief, including delivery up or destruction of the data. The defendants' conduct was arguably a blackmail attempt. Article 10 ECHR and section 12(3) HRA 1998 were not engaged.

Court Disposition

Interim non-disclosure order granted in favour of the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendants to deliver up or destroy the confidential information obtained from the claimant's systems.
  • Anonymity order for all parties pending further hearing.