CC v AB [2006] EWHC 3083 (QB) (04 December 2006)

CC v AB [2006] EWHC 3083 (QB) (04 December 2006)

There is no absolute rule preventing an adulterer from obtaining an injunction to restrain publication by a wronged spouse; the court must balance the competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, applying an intense focus to the facts. In this case, the Claimant and the other party to the relationship have a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3083
Parties
Claimant: CC; Defendant: AB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Protection From Harassment, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Interim Injunctions, Balancing Competing Convention Rights
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Law Tort Law Breach of Confidence Protection From Harassment Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CC

Claimant

AB

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adulterer can obtain injunctive relief restraining the 'wronged' spouse from disclosing the relationship to the public or media
  2. 2 Whether there is a legitimate expectation of privacy in respect of an adulterous relationship
  3. 3 How to balance Article 8 (privacy) rights against Article 10 (expression) rights in this context

Ratio Decidendi

There is no absolute rule preventing an adulterer from obtaining an injunction to restrain publication by a wronged spouse; the court must balance the competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, applying an intense focus to the facts. In this case, the Claimant and the other party to the relationship have a legitimate expectation of privacy, and the Defendant's motive is not public interest but revenge and profit. The risk of harm to the Claimant's family, particularly his wife's mental health, justifies an injunction restraining the Defendant from communicating with the media or on the internet about the relationship. The requirements of s.12(3) of the Human Rights Act are satisfied,...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from communicating, directly or indirectly, with the media or on the internet about the Claimant's former relationship with N.
  • Order under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 granted.