SKA & Anor v CRH & Anor [2012] EWHC 766 (QB) (28 March 2012)

SKA & Anor v CRH & Anor [2012] EWHC 766 (QB) (28 March 2012)

The claimants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bare fact of their relationship and the first claimant's paternity of the twins as against disclosure to the first claimant's grown up children and wife. Even if such expectation existed, the balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 rights, and the interests of the children and wife, would not justify an injunction restraining such disclosure. However, the claimants are likely to succeed in restraining disclosure of more intimate or intrusive details, and in preventing harassment and blackmail.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 766 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: SKA; Claimant: PLM; Defendant: CRH; Defendant: Persons Unknown who have threatened to reveal private information about the Claimants
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Interim Application; Judgment on Return Date After Ex Parte Order
Outcome
Interim injunction continued in part; refused in part
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Blackmail, Harassment, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Anonymity Orders, Balancing of Competing Rights
Privacy Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Law Interim Injunctions Blackmail Harassment Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +2 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SKA

Claimant

PLM

Claimant

CRH

Defendant

Persons Unknown who have threatened to reveal private information about the Claimants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Interim Application; Judgment on Return Date After Ex Parte Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to an interim or final injunction restraining the defendants from disclosing private information and from harassment
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bare fact of their relationship and paternity of twins
  3. 3 Whether disclosure to the first claimant's family, friends, or business associates should be restrained

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bare fact of their relationship and the first claimant's paternity of the twins as against disclosure to the first claimant's grown up children and wife. Even if such expectation existed, the balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 rights, and the interests of the children and wife, would not justify an injunction restraining such disclosure. However, the claimants are likely to succeed in restraining disclosure of more intimate or intrusive details, and in preventing harassment and blackmail.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued in part; refused in part

Orders

  • Injunction restraining disclosure of intimate, intrusive, or detailed private information and harassment continued.
  • No injunction granted restraining disclosure of the bare fact of the relationship and paternity to the first claimant's grown up children and wife.