D v L

D v L

The appeal was dismissed because, although covert tape recordings of private conversations prima facie attract an obligation of confidence, the specific circumstances—including the respondent's purpose in making the tapes, the information already being in the public domain, the absence of evidence of intent to publish, and the appellant's own conduct—meant that discretionary injunctive relief was not warranted.

Parties
Appellant: D; Respondent: L
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division Judgment Refusing Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Injunctive Relief, Privacy in Private Communications, Freedom of Expression, Use of Covert Recordings
Equity Privacy Civil Procedure Breach of Confidence Injunctive Relief Privacy in Private Communications Freedom of Expression Use of Covert Recordings

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D

Appellant

L

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division Judgment Refusing Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party unaware of a covert tape recording is entitled to injunctive relief to prevent publication of the recording
  2. 2 Whether the judge misdirected himself in refusing injunctive relief
  3. 3 Whether the information on the tapes or the tapes themselves attract confidentiality despite some information being in the public domain

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, although covert tape recordings of private conversations prima facie attract an obligation of confidence, the specific circumstances—including the respondent's purpose in making the tapes, the information already being in the public domain, the absence of evidence of intent to publish, and the appellant's own conduct—meant that discretionary injunctive relief was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No injunction granted in relation to the tapes
  • Appellant to pay costs of the appeal