SOJ v JAO [2019] EWHC 2569 (QB) (04 October 2019)

SOJ v JAO [2019] EWHC 2569 (QB) (04 October 2019)

The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from disclosing or publishing the confidential information because (1) there is no public interest in publication; (2) the confidentiality agreement was freely entered into in settlement of litigation with legal advice; (3) there is credible evidence of threatened and actual breach and blackmail; (4) the claimant would not be adequately compensated by damages; and (5) the balance of convenience and the requirements of s.12 Human Rights Act 1998 are met. The application was properly heard without notice and in private due to the risk of defeating the order's purpose.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2569
Parties
Claimant: SOJ; Defendant: JAO
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (privacy/confidentiality) / Without Notice, Pre Trial, Pending Inter Partes Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunction granted pending inter partes hearing
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Confidentiality Agreements, Blackmail, Gdpr/data Protection, Freedom of Expression, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Privacy Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Confidentiality Agreements Blackmail Gdpr/data Protection Freedom of Expression +2 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SOJ

Claimant

JAO

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (privacy/confidentiality) / Without Notice, Pre Trial, Pending Inter Partes Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an interim injunction restraining publication/disclosure of private/confidential information
  2. 2 Whether the contractual confidentiality agreement should be enforced
  3. 3 Whether the application should be heard without notice and in private

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from disclosing or publishing the confidential information because (1) there is no public interest in publication; (2) the confidentiality agreement was freely entered into in settlement of litigation with legal advice; (3) there is credible evidence of threatened and actual breach and blackmail; (4) the claimant would not be adequately compensated by damages; and (5) the balance of convenience and the requirements of s.12 Human Rights Act 1998 are met. The application was properly heard without notice and in private due to the risk of defeating the order's purpose.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted pending inter partes hearing

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from disclosing, publishing, or using the confidential information identified in the order anywhere in the world, pending further order.
  • Anonymity of the parties maintained.