London Borough Of Lambeth v Pead

London Borough Of Lambeth v Pead

The court was satisfied that the claimants were likely to succeed at trial on both the non-disclosure and harassment claims, and that interim injunctions were necessary to prevent further harm pending trial.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Lambeth; Claimant: Pinsent Masons LLP; Claimant: Phyllis Dunipace OBE; Claimant: Cathy Twist; Defendant: Brian Pead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Injunction Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunctions continued until trial or further order.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Non Disclosure Orders, Confidentiality, Harassment, Data Protection Act 1998, Defamation
Civil Procedure Defamation Data Protection Harassment Interim Injunctions Non Disclosure Orders Confidentiality Data Protection Act 1998

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Lambeth

Claimant

Pinsent Masons LLP

Claimant

Phyllis Dunipace OBE

Claimant

Cathy Twist

Claimant

Brian Pead

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Injunction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctions should be continued restraining publication of confidential information and harassment of claimants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court was satisfied that the claimants were likely to succeed at trial on both the non-disclosure and harassment claims, and that interim injunctions were necessary to prevent further harm pending trial.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions continued until trial or further order.

Orders

  • Non-disclosure order prohibiting publication of confidential information relating to children formerly under Lambeth's care.
  • Order restraining the defendant from harassing claimants, their officers, partners, and employees.