London Borough of Lambeth v AM (Judgment No. 2)

London Borough of Lambeth v AM (Judgment No. 2)

The information regarding the identity of the informant was confidential, communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and AM's unauthorised use and threatened further use constituted a breach. The public interest defence did not apply because the referral was not made maliciously or in bad faith; the informant acted out of genuine concern for the child. The public interest in maintaining confidentiality of informants outweighed any alleged wrongdoing.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Lambeth; Defendant: A. M.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed. Public interest defence rejected. Breach of confidence established.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Confidentiality of Informants, Public Interest Defence, Data Protection, Child Protection Referrals
Equity Tort Data Protection Family Law Breach of Confidence Confidentiality of Informants Public Interest Defence Child Protection Referrals

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Lambeth

Claimant

A. M.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached a duty of confidence owed to the claimant regarding the identity of a child protection informant
  2. 2 Whether the public interest defence applies to the defendant's use and threatened disclosure of the confidential information

Ratio Decidendi

The information regarding the identity of the informant was confidential, communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and AM's unauthorised use and threatened further use constituted a breach. The public interest defence did not apply because the referral was not made maliciously or in bad faith; the informant acted out of genuine concern for the child. The public interest in maintaining confidentiality of informants outweighed any alleged wrongdoing.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Public interest defence rejected. Breach of confidence established.

Orders

  • Final injunctive relief to be granted restraining further use or disclosure of the confidential information regarding the informant's identity.
  • Orders for destruction of unredacted copies of the file held by AM and inspection of his electronic devices to confirm deletion, subject to further submissions on terms.