Ho v Bragg [2018] EWHC 214 (QB) (08 February 2018)

Ho v Bragg [2018] EWHC 214 (QB) (08 February 2018)

The applicant demonstrated a likelihood of establishing at trial that publication of the confidential documents should not be allowed, due to their private nature, lack of justification for disclosure, and the blackmail element. The requirements of s.12 Human Rights Act 1998 were satisfied, including compelling reasons for granting relief without full notice to the respondent.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 214 (QB)
Parties
Applicant: Faye Clementina Ho; Respondent: Adam Bragg
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interim Application Before Return Day
Outcome
Interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Non Disclosure Orders, Blackmail, Confidential Information, Freedom of Expression
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Interim Injunctions Non Disclosure Orders Blackmail Confidential Information Freedom of Expression

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faye Clementina Ho

Applicant

Adam Bragg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Interim Application Before Return Day

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim non-disclosure order should be granted against the respondent to prevent disclosure of confidential documents
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements under s.12 Human Rights Act 1998 for relief without notice
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated a likelihood of establishing at trial that publication of the confidential documents should not be allowed, due to their private nature, lack of justification for disclosure, and the blackmail element. The requirements of s.12 Human Rights Act 1998 were satisfied, including compelling reasons for granting relief without full notice to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Interim non-disclosure order preventing respondent from disclosing documents or their contents to third parties until return day
  • Order for delivery up of documents to applicant's solicitors, with provision for respondent to receive copies for purposes of proceedings upon written undertaking