Higinbotham (formerly BWK) v Teekhungam & Anor [2018] EWHC 1880 (QB) (24 July 2018)

Higinbotham (formerly BWK) v Teekhungam & Anor [2018] EWHC 1880 (QB) (24 July 2018)

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because it was brought for a collateral purpose, was harassing in nature, and was not worth the candle given the trivial extent of publication, lack of evidence of harm, and disproportionate costs. The Jameel principle applied to all claims, including under the Data Protection Act 1998, and the proceedings had already been ventilated in other jurisdictions. There was no real prospect of repetition or further harm, and the claim for injunctive relief was academic.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1880 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Harlow Higinbotham (formerly BWK); First Defendant/respondent: Wipaporn Teekhungam; Second Defendant/respondent: Winton Anthony Perry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from Master to High Court) / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; claim struck out as abuse of process
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Data Protection Act 1998, Abuse of Process, Jameel Principle, Collateral Purpose, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Privacy Law Data Protection Civil Procedure Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Data Protection Act 1998 Abuse of Process Jameel Principle +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harlow Higinbotham (formerly BWK)

Claimant/appellant

Wipaporn Teekhungam

First Defendant/respondent

Winton Anthony Perry

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from Master to High Court) / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for misuse of private information, breach of confidence, and breach of Data Protection Act 1998 should be struck out as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claim was brought for a collateral purpose
  3. 3 Whether the Jameel principle applies to data protection claims

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because it was brought for a collateral purpose, was harassing in nature, and was not worth the candle given the trivial extent of publication, lack of evidence of harm, and disproportionate costs. The Jameel principle applied to all claims, including under the Data Protection Act 1998, and the proceedings had already been ventilated in other jurisdictions. There was no real prospect of repetition or further harm, and the claim for injunctive relief was academic.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; claim struck out as abuse of process

Orders

  • Anonymity order discharged
  • Claim struck out in its entirety