Gold & Anor v Cox & Anor [2012] EWHC 367 (QB) (24 February 2012)

Gold & Anor v Cox & Anor [2012] EWHC 367 (QB) (24 February 2012)

A final non-disclosure injunction was justified because the information at issue was private and confidential, the defendants had consented, and there was no sufficient justification for disclosure. The order should not include a reverse burden of proof in the public domain proviso, as the burden remains on the claimant to prove breach, consistent with contempt principles.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 367
Parties
Claimant: Jacqueline Gold; Claimant: Ann Summers Ltd; Defendant: Allison Cox; Defendant: Leanne Bingham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment on Application for Non Disclosure Injunction
Outcome
Final non-disclosure injunction granted in favour of the claimants.
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure Injunction, Confidential Information, Freedom of Expression, Burden of Proof, Contempt of Court
Privacy Employment Civil Procedure Non Disclosure Injunction Confidential Information Freedom of Expression Burden of Proof Contempt of Court

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Gold

Claimant

Ann Summers Ltd

Claimant

Allison Cox

Defendant

Leanne Bingham

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment on Application for Non Disclosure Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final non-disclosure injunction should be granted against the defendants regarding private and confidential information about the first claimant and her family
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof in relation to the public domain proviso should be reversed in the order

Ratio Decidendi

A final non-disclosure injunction was justified because the information at issue was private and confidential, the defendants had consented, and there was no sufficient justification for disclosure. The order should not include a reverse burden of proof in the public domain proviso, as the burden remains on the claimant to prove breach, consistent with contempt principles.

Court Disposition

Final non-disclosure injunction granted in favour of the claimants.

Orders

  • Defendants are restrained from using, publishing, communicating or disclosing the confidential information identified in the order, subject to the public domain proviso.
  • Order includes a penal notice warning of contempt of court for breach.