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 failed to establish that they are likely to succeed at trial in restraining disclosure of the bare fact of the First Claimant's paternity of the twins to his grown up children and wife, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those bare facts in the circumstances, and the balancing of Convention rights does not favour a continuing injunction. However, the Claimants are likely to succeed in restraining disclosure of more intrusive or detailed private information (such as photographs, financial information, and intimate details) and in restraining harassment and blackmail.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 766
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 / Interim Application, Judgment Following Return Date Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunction continued in part; refused in part
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Blackmail, Harassment, Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Balancing of Convention Rights, Anonymity Orders, Protection From Harassment Act 1997
Privacy Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Blackmail Harassment Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) +3 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 20 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 / Interim Application, Judgment Following Return Date Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an interim or final injunction restraining disclosure of private information to the Claimant's family, friends, and business associates
  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 the threatened disclosure constitutes harassment or blackmail

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants failed to establish that they are likely to succeed at trial in restraining disclosure of the bare fact of the First Claimant's paternity of the twins to his grown up children and wife, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those bare facts in the circumstances, and the balancing of Convention rights does not favour a continuing injunction. However, the Claimants are likely to succeed in restraining disclosure of more intrusive or detailed private information (such as photographs, financial information, and intimate details) and in restraining harassment and blackmail.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued in part; refused in part

Orders

  • Continued injunction restraining disclosure of intrusive or detailed private information (including photographs, financial information, and intimate details) and harassment
  • Refused injunction restraining disclosure of the bare fact of the First Claimant's paternity of the twins to his grown up children and wife