Smith v Backhouse [2022] EWHC 3011 (KB) (08 November 2022)

Smith v Backhouse [2022] EWHC 3011 (KB) (08 November 2022)

The court has jurisdiction to accept only some of the Defendant's contractual undertakings as undertakings given to the court. The court will not accept undertakings that are too vague or broad and will only accept those it is prepared to enforce by contempt. In this case, undertakings (1), (2), and (3) are too vague/wide and will not be accepted; undertakings (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) are accepted.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3011 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Dr. Erica Smith; Defendant: Dr. Christopher Backhouse
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (harassment, Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Data Protection Rights) / Post Settlement, Application for Court to Accept Undertakings as Part of Consent Order
Outcome
Court accepts undertakings (4)-(8) as undertakings to the court; undertakings (1)-(3) not accepted as court undertakings.
Legal Topics
Court Undertakings, Consent Orders, Part 36 Offers, Harassment Injunctions, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection Breaches
Civil Procedure Media Law Data Protection Privacy Harassment Court Undertakings Consent Orders Part 36 Offers +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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Erica Smith

Claimant

Dr. Christopher Backhouse

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (harassment, Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Data Protection Rights) / Post Settlement, Application for Court to Accept Undertakings as Part of Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Can the court refuse to accept undertakings agreed by parties as part of settlement?
  2. 2 What principles govern the court's acceptance of undertakings?
  3. 3 Are the proposed undertakings too vague or broad for enforcement?

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to accept only some of the Defendant's contractual undertakings as undertakings given to the court. The court will not accept undertakings that are too vague or broad and will only accept those it is prepared to enforce by contempt. In this case, undertakings (1), (2), and (3) are too vague/wide and will not be accepted; undertakings (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) are accepted.

Court Disposition

Court accepts undertakings (4)-(8) as undertakings to the court; undertakings (1)-(3) not accepted as court undertakings.

Orders

  • Defendant to provide undertakings in terms of paragraphs (4)-(8) to the court.
  • Claimant left to contractual remedies for breach of paragraphs (1)-(3).