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

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

The injunction restraining the Defendant from including protected information in his Employment Tribunal claim is refused; the Defendant is permitted to include such information in his ET1 without prior approval from the Claimant or this court, as the Employment Tribunal is better placed to determine admissibility and protect privacy. The risk of abuse or wider disclosure is not real, and the Claimant's Article 8 rights do not override the Defendant's Article 6 and 10 rights to access justice and freedom of expression in this context.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 774 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: BUQ; Defendant: HRE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Interim Application for Injunction / Post Initial Interim Hearing, Pre Trial
Outcome
Injunction refused; contested variation granted
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure Orders, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Sexual Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Blackmail Allegations
Employment Law Privacy Law Human Rights Law Non Disclosure Orders Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Sexual Harassment Freedom of Expression Employment Tribunal Procedure +1 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 Application for Injunction / Post Initial Interim Hearing, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction restraining disclosure of private information should be continued
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant should be permitted to include protected information in an Employment Tribunal claim without prior approval
  3. 3 Balancing Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (expression) rights

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction restraining the Defendant from including protected information in his Employment Tribunal claim is refused; the Defendant is permitted to include such information in his ET1 without prior approval from the Claimant or this court, as the Employment Tribunal is better placed to determine admissibility and protect privacy. The risk of abuse or wider disclosure is not real, and the Claimant's Article 8 rights do not override the Defendant's Article 6 and 10 rights to access justice and freedom of expression in this context.

Court Disposition

Injunction refused; contested variation granted

Orders

  • Order continued with the disputed variation permitting Defendant to include protected information in ET1 without prior approval
  • Other agreed variations to the order adopted