Tillery Valley Foods v Channel Four Television & Anor [2004] EWHC 1075 (Ch) (11 May 2004)

Tillery Valley Foods v Channel Four Television & Anor [2004] EWHC 1075 (Ch) (11 May 2004)

The filmed material did not possess the necessary quality of confidentiality, public interest justified disclosure, and there is no legal right of reply enforceable via the law of confidence; therefore, the claimant has no real prospect of success and the injunction is refused.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1075 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Tillery Valley Foods; Defendant: Channel Four Television; Defendant: Shine Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Decision on Application for Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Breach of Confidence, Freedom of Expression, Public Interest, Right of Reply
Media Law Confidentiality Defamation Human Rights Interim Injunctions Breach of Confidence Freedom of Expression Public Interest +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tillery Valley Foods

Claimant

Channel Four Television

Defendant

Shine Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Decision on Application for Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining broadcast based on breach of confidence
  2. 2 Whether confidential information exists in the filmed material
  3. 3 Whether public interest justifies disclosure of alleged confidential information

Ratio Decidendi

The filmed material did not possess the necessary quality of confidentiality, public interest justified disclosure, and there is no legal right of reply enforceable via the law of confidence; therefore, the claimant has no real prospect of success and the injunction is refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No injunction granted
  • Broadcast may proceed as scheduled