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 owed to the local authority and the informant. AM received and used the information in breach of confidence, knowing or being deemed to know its confidential nature. The public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of informants reporting child welfare concerns outweighs any alleged malice or iniquity by the informant in this case. No sufficient evidence of iniquity or malice was found to justify overriding confidentiality. Injunctive relief and orders for destruction of unredacted information are justified.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 186 (QB)
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 ancillary orders granted.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Confidentiality of Informants, Public Interest Defence, Child Protection Referrals, Data Protection, Injunctions
Equity Tort Public Law Breach of Confidence Confidentiality of Informants Public Interest Defence Child Protection Referrals Data Protection +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 16 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
  2. 2 Whether the defendant received and used the information in breach of confidence
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in exposing alleged malice outweighs the public interest in confidentiality

Ratio Decidendi

The identity of a child protection informant is confidential information owed to the local authority and the informant. AM received and used the information in breach of confidence, knowing or being deemed to know its confidential nature. The public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of informants reporting child welfare concerns outweighs any alleged malice or iniquity by the informant in this case. No sufficient evidence of iniquity or malice was found to justify overriding confidentiality. Injunctive relief and orders for destruction of unredacted information are justified.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Injunction and ancillary orders granted.

Orders

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