Ambrosiadou v Coward

Ambrosiadou v Coward

The court declined to clarify or amplify the scope of permission to appeal, holding that the matters raised are either already encompassed within the existing permission or are not appropriate for determination at this stage. The distinction between personal and business information is a matter for the substantive appeal or any consequential order, not for preliminary determination.

Parties
Applicant: Ambrosiadou; Respondent: Coward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Clarification or Amplification of Permission to Appeal
Outcome
No order made
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Confidential Information, Article 8 ECHR, Appeal Permission Scope

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ambrosiadou

Applicant

Coward

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Clarification or Amplification of Permission to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the scope of permission to appeal should be clarified or amplified to include additional grounds relating to publication of confidential information
  2. 2 Whether business affairs intertwined with matrimonial proceedings attract Article 8 protection
  3. 3 Whether reliance on counsel's assurance is sufficient to protect the child's privacy

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to clarify or amplify the scope of permission to appeal, holding that the matters raised are either already encompassed within the existing permission or are not appropriate for determination at this stage. The distinction between personal and business information is a matter for the substantive appeal or any consequential order, not for preliminary determination.

Court Disposition

No order made