Ameyaw v McGoldrick & Ors [2020] EWHC 1741 (QB) (02 July 2020)

Ameyaw v McGoldrick & Ors [2020] EWHC 1741 (QB) (02 July 2020)

The Claimant's interim injunction application was refused for lack of sufficient notice and absence of urgency; the application to exclude documents was refused as the documents were relevant and admissible; the application for the McKenzie friend to make oral submissions was refused as there were no exceptional...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1741
Parties
Claimant: Yvonne Ameyaw; Defendant: Christina McGoldrick; Defendant: Louise Coyne; Defendant: PricewaterhouseCoopers Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Media and Communications / Interlocutory (preliminary Applications, Strike Out/summary Judgment, Interim Injunction)
Outcome
Applications by the Claimant refused; Defendants' application adjourned.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Interim Injunctions, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Mc Kenzie Friend, Remote Hearings, Admissibility of Evidence
Defamation Privacy Civil Procedure Libel Malicious Falsehood Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Interim Injunctions +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yvonne Ameyaw

Claimant

Christina McGoldrick

Defendant

Louise Coyne

Defendant

PricewaterhouseCoopers Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Media and Communications / Interlocutory (preliminary Applications, Strike Out/summary Judgment, Interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's interim injunction application should be heard at the same hearing as the Defendants' application
  2. 2 Whether documents from employment tribunal proceedings should be ruled inadmissible
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's McKenzie friend should be permitted to make oral submissions

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's interim injunction application was refused for lack of sufficient notice and absence of urgency; the application to exclude documents was refused as the documents were relevant and admissible; the application for the McKenzie friend to make oral submissions was refused as there were no exceptional circumstances; the Defendants' application was adjourned due to the Claimant's absence following a medical incident.

Court Disposition

Applications by the Claimant refused; Defendants' application adjourned.

Orders

  • Refusal to hear the Claimant's interim injunction application at the hearing on 1 July 2020
  • Refusal to strike out parts of the Defendants' hearing bundle as inadmissible