Dr Erica Smith v Dr Christopher Backhouse

Dr Erica Smith v Dr Christopher Backhouse

The court has jurisdiction to accept only those undertakings as undertakings to the court which are sufficiently clear and precise to be enforceable; undertakings that are too vague or wide will not be accepted, even if agreed by the parties. The court accepted undertakings in paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8), but refused to accept paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) due to their vagueness and breadth.

Parties
Claimant: Dr. Erica Smith; Defendant: Dr. Christopher Backhouse
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Acceptance of Undertakings as Part of Settlement
Outcome
Court accepted only some undertakings as undertakings to the court; others remain contractual.
Legal Topics
Undertakings to Court, Settlement Agreements, Harassment, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection, Consent Orders
Civil Procedure Harassment Data Protection Media Law Undertakings to Court Settlement Agreements Misuse of Private Information Consent Orders

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Erica Smith

Claimant

Dr. Christopher Backhouse

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Acceptance of Undertakings as Part of Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can refuse to accept undertakings agreed by parties as part of a settlement
  2. 2 Appropriateness and enforceability of undertakings given to the court
  3. 3 Breadth and vagueness of undertakings

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to accept only those undertakings as undertakings to the court which are sufficiently clear and precise to be enforceable; undertakings that are too vague or wide will not be accepted, even if agreed by the parties. The court accepted undertakings in paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8), but refused to accept paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) due to their vagueness and breadth.

Court Disposition

Court accepted only some undertakings as undertakings to the court; others remain contractual.

Orders

  • Defendant to give undertakings in terms of paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) as undertakings to the court.
  • Defendant to pay Claimant £49,975 in damages.