Ambrosiadou v Coward [2010] EWCA Civ 1456 (23 November 2010)

Ambrosiadou v Coward [2010] EWCA Civ 1456 (23 November 2010)

The court declined to clarify or expand the scope of the permission to appeal, holding that the issues raised were either already encompassed within the existing permission or were not appropriate for determination at this stage. The question of whether business affairs attract Article 8 protection depends on the facts and is not a discrete ground of appeal in this case.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1456
Parties
Applicant: Ambrosiadou; Respondent: Coward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Clarification/amplification of Permission to Appeal
Outcome
No order made
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Confidential Information, Article 8 ECHR, Business and Personal Privacy, Child's Rights
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Injunctions Confidential Information Article 8 ECHR Business and Personal Privacy Child's Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ambrosiadou

Applicant

Coward

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Clarification/amplification of Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assurance of counsel is sufficient protection for confidential information relating to a child, or whether a binding undertaking or order is required
  2. 2 Whether business affairs intertwined with matrimonial proceedings attract Article 8 protection

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to clarify or expand the scope of the permission to appeal, holding that the issues raised were either already encompassed within the existing permission or were not appropriate for determination at this stage. The question of whether business affairs attract Article 8 protection depends on the facts and is not a discrete ground of appeal in this case.

Court Disposition

No order made