NPV v QEL & Anor [2018] EWHC 703 (QB) (28 March 2018)

NPV v QEL & Anor [2018] EWHC 703 (QB) (28 March 2018)

The Claimant demonstrated a prima facie case of blackmail and is likely to succeed at trial in claims for misuse of private information and harassment. The urgency and risk of publication justified a private, without notice hearing and interim injunction. The balance of competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR favours restraining publication, especially given the blackmail context.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 703
Parties
Claimant: NPV; First Defendant: QEL; Second Defendant: ZED (person unknown allegedly trying to blackmail the Claimant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interim Judgment on Without Notice Application
Outcome
Interim non-disclosure and harassment injunction granted
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Harassment, Blackmail, Interim Non Disclosure Injunction, Anonymity Orders, Freedom of Expression, Human Rights Act 1998 S.12
Media Law Privacy Law Tort Law Misuse of Private Information Harassment Blackmail Interim Non Disclosure Injunction Anonymity Orders +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NPV

Claimant

QEL

First Defendant

ZED (person unknown allegedly trying to blackmail the Claimant)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Interim Judgment on Without Notice Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to an interim non-disclosure and harassment injunction against the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is likely to succeed at trial in claims for misuse of private information and harassment
  3. 3 Whether the application should be heard without notice and in private

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant demonstrated a prima facie case of blackmail and is likely to succeed at trial in claims for misuse of private information and harassment. The urgency and risk of publication justified a private, without notice hearing and interim injunction. The balance of competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR favours restraining publication, especially given the blackmail context.

Court Disposition

Interim non-disclosure and harassment injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendants restrained from publishing or communicating the private information pending further order
  • Defendants required to state whether they have disclosed communications between Claimant and First Defendant to third parties