London Borough Of Lambeth v Pead [2013] EWHC 212 (QB) (12 February 2013)

London Borough Of Lambeth v Pead [2013] EWHC 212 (QB) (12 February 2013)

The claimants demonstrated a likelihood of success at trial for both non-disclosure and harassment claims; interim injunctions were necessary to prevent further harm and preserve confidentiality pending trial.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 212 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Lambeth; Defendant: Brian Pead; Claimant: London Borough of Lambeth (in a representative capacity on behalf of its officers and employees); Claimant: Pinsent Masons LLP (in a representative capacity on behalf of its partners and employees); Claimant: Phyllis Dunipace OBE; Claimant: Cathy Twist
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Applications / Interim Hearing; Orders Continued Pending Trial
Outcome
Interim injunctions continued pending trial or further order.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Non Disclosure Orders, Harassment, Confidentiality, Data Protection Act 1998, Defamation
Civil Procedure Data Protection Harassment Defamation 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Lambeth

Claimant

Brian Pead

Defendant

London Borough of Lambeth (in a representative capacity on behalf of its officers and employees)

Claimant

Pinsent Masons LLP (in a representative capacity on behalf of its partners and employees)

Claimant

Phyllis Dunipace OBE

Claimant

Cathy Twist

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Applications / Interim Hearing; Orders Continued Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctions should be granted to restrain disclosure of confidential information
  2. 2 Whether interim injunctions should be granted to restrain harassment of claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants demonstrated a likelihood of success at trial for both non-disclosure and harassment claims; interim injunctions were necessary to prevent further harm and preserve confidentiality pending trial.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions continued pending trial or further order.

Orders

  • Non-disclosure order prohibiting disclosure of information concerning pupils or former pupils of Lambeth unit.
  • Order restraining defendant from harassing officers, partners, employees, and personal claimants.