Deloitte & Touche Llp & Anor v Dickson & Ors [2005] EWHC 721 (Ch) (29 April 2005)

Deloitte & Touche Llp & Anor v Dickson & Ors [2005] EWHC 721 (Ch) (29 April 2005)

The JDS and its officers had the power to issue the 2005 Press Notice under the general powers of the Scheme, and there was no express or implied prohibition. Most of the information in the Press Notice was not confidential as against the Claimants, but certain details derived from the Claimants' own information were confidential. However, the public interest in transparency and regulation outweighed the limited confidentiality, and the Claimants failed to show actionable harm from publication of the non-public elements.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 721 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Deloitte & Touche LLP; Claimant: Mr Martin A Scicluna; Defendant: Christopher Dickson; Defendant: William Morrison; Defendant: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; Defendant: VNU Business Publications Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (chancery Division, High Court) / Final Hearing (treated as Trial of Action)
Outcome
Claim dismissed (injunction refused)
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Ultra Vires, Freedom of Expression, Public Interest Defence, Professional Disciplinary Proceedings
Equity Professional Regulation Media Law Breach of Confidence Ultra Vires Freedom of Expression Public Interest Defence Professional Disciplinary Proceedings

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Claimant

Mr Martin A Scicluna

Claimant

Christopher Dickson

Defendant

William Morrison

Defendant

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

Defendant

VNU Business Publications Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (chancery Division, High Court) / Final Hearing (treated as Trial of Action)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Joint Disciplinary Scheme (JDS) and its officers had power to issue the 2005 Press Notice
  2. 2 Whether publication of the 2005 Press Notice would breach a duty of confidence owed to the Claimants
  3. 3 Whether any such breach is overridden by public interest in publication

Ratio Decidendi

The JDS and its officers had the power to issue the 2005 Press Notice under the general powers of the Scheme, and there was no express or implied prohibition. Most of the information in the Press Notice was not confidential as against the Claimants, but certain details derived from the Claimants' own information were confidential. However, the public interest in transparency and regulation outweighed the limited confidentiality, and the Claimants failed to show actionable harm from publication of the non-public elements.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed (injunction refused)

Orders

  • Refusal of injunction restraining publication of the 2005 Press Notice
  • No declaration of breach of Scheme, Regulation 52, or duty of confidence