BUQ v HRE [2012] EWHC 774 (QB) (29 March 2012)

BUQ v HRE [2012] EWHC 774 (QB) (29 March 2012)

The court refused to continue the injunction in the form sought by the claimant because it was neither necessary nor proportionate to require the defendant to seek the claimant's approval before including the disputed information in his Employment Tribunal claim. The Employment Tribunal is better placed to determine what information is relevant and to protect privacy rights through its own procedures. There was no real risk of abuse of process or unwarranted disclosure justifying pre-emptive restraint.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 774
Parties
Claimant: BUQ; Defendant: HRE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Initial Interim Order, Return Date Hearing for Continuation and Variation of Injunction
Outcome
Injunction continued with the variation sought by the defendant; claimant's request for prior approval mechanism refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Non Disclosure Orders, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Freedom of Expression, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Sexual Harassment, Confidential Information
Privacy Law Employment Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Non Disclosure Orders Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Employment Tribunal Procedure Freedom of Expression +5 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BUQ

Claimant

HRE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Initial Interim Order, Return Date Hearing for Continuation and Variation of Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from disclosing information of a sexual nature in Employment Tribunal proceedings without prior approval
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should be permitted to include such information in his Employment Tribunal claim form (ET1) without restriction
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal's own procedures and powers are sufficient to protect the claimant's privacy rights

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to continue the injunction in the form sought by the claimant because it was neither necessary nor proportionate to require the defendant to seek the claimant's approval before including the disputed information in his Employment Tribunal claim. The Employment Tribunal is better placed to determine what information is relevant and to protect privacy rights through its own procedures. There was no real risk of abuse of process or unwarranted disclosure justifying pre-emptive restraint.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued with the variation sought by the defendant; claimant's request for prior approval mechanism refused.

Orders

  • The non-disclosure order is continued with the defendant's proposed variation permitting inclusion of the disputed information in the Employment Tribunal claim form (ET1) without prior approval from the claimant.
  • Other agreed variations to the order are incorporated.