SKA & Anor v CRH & Ors [2012] EWHC 2236 (QB) (31 July 2012)

SKA & Anor v CRH & Ors [2012] EWHC 2236 (QB) (31 July 2012)

The defendant was responsible for threats to disclose private information and for harassment of the claimants. The information was private, not in the public domain, and no justification existed for its disclosure. The defendant's conduct fell within the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The claimants' Article 8 rights outweighed the defendant's Article 10 rights. A permanent injunction was necessary to restrain further misuse of private information and harassment.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2236 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: SKA; Claimant: PLM; Defendant: CRH; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Permanent injunction granted against the first defendant.
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Harassment, Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Protection From Harassment Act 1997
Privacy Law Tort Law Human Rights Misuse of Private Information Harassment Injunctions Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SKA

Claimant

PLM

Claimant

CRH

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a threat to disclose private information and harassment justifying a permanent injunction
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was responsible for the threats and harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was responsible for threats to disclose private information and for harassment of the claimants. The information was private, not in the public domain, and no justification existed for its disclosure. The defendant's conduct fell within the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The claimants' Article 8 rights outweighed the defendant's Article 10 rights. A permanent injunction was necessary to restrain further misuse of private information and harassment.

Court Disposition

Permanent injunction granted against the first defendant.

Orders

  • The first defendant is permanently restrained from disclosing the private information identified in the November letter and documents.
  • The first defendant is restrained from engaging in any further harassment of the claimants.