London Borough of Lambeth v AM (Judgment No. 2) [2021] EWHC 186 (QB) (05 February 2021)

London Borough of Lambeth v AM (Judgment No. 2) [2021] EWHC 186 (QB) (05 February 2021)

The identity of a child protection informant is confidential information protected by law. The defendant received and used this information in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, knowing it was confidential. The public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of informants outweighs any alleged malice by the informant. The public interest defence does not apply absent proof of conduct so iniquitous as to override the strong policy in favour of confidentiality. No such iniquity was established on the facts. The defendant breached his duty of confidence.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 186
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Lambeth; Defendant: A. M.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (breach of Confidence, Injunction) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed. Injunction and orders granted.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Public Interest Defence, Confidentiality of Informants, Child Protection Referrals, Data Protection
Equity Confidentiality Tort Public Law Breach of Confidence Public Interest Defence Confidentiality of Informants Child Protection Referrals +1 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 3 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 (breach of Confidence, Injunction) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identity of a child protection informant is confidential information protected by law
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached an equitable duty of confidence by unredacting and using the informant's identity
  3. 3 Whether the public interest defence applies where the informant is alleged to have acted maliciously

Ratio Decidendi

The identity of a child protection informant is confidential information protected by law. The defendant received and used this information in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, knowing it was confidential. The public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of informants outweighs any alleged malice by the informant. The public interest defence does not apply absent proof of conduct so iniquitous as to override the strong policy in favour of confidentiality. No such iniquity was established on the facts. The defendant breached his duty of confidence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Injunction and orders granted.

Orders

  • Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using or disclosing the unredacted confidential information as to the informant's identity.
  • Order for destruction of all unredacted copies of the file held by the defendant.