P & Ors v Quigley [2008] EWHC 1051 (QB) (16 May 2008)

P & Ors v Quigley [2008] EWHC 1051 (QB) (16 May 2008)

The court held that the threatened publication would constitute an unjustifiable infringement of the Claimants' privacy rights under Article 8 ECHR, with no legitimate public interest or defence advanced. The Defendant's freedom of expression under Article 10 was outweighed by the need to protect the Claimants from distress and embarrassment. There was no realistic prospect of a defence succeeding, making summary judgment and a permanent injunction appropriate.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1051 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: P; Claimant: Q; Claimant: R; Defendant: Mark Gerard Quigley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of P and Q; permanent injunction issued; application as to R adjourned.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process
Privacy Law Human Rights Law Injunctions Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Summary Judgment Abuse of Process

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P

Claimant

Q

Claimant

R

Claimant

Mark Gerard Quigley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threatened publication by the Defendant would infringe the privacy rights of P and Q under Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether a permanent injunction should be granted restraining publication
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant has any realistic prospect of defending the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the threatened publication would constitute an unjustifiable infringement of the Claimants' privacy rights under Article 8 ECHR, with no legitimate public interest or defence advanced. The Defendant's freedom of expression under Article 10 was outweighed by the need to protect the Claimants from distress and embarrassment. There was no realistic prospect of a defence succeeding, making summary judgment and a permanent injunction appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of P and Q; permanent injunction issued; application as to R adjourned.

Orders

  • Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from publishing, communicating, or disclosing any information concerning the sexual and private conduct of P and Q.
  • Application regarding R adjourned for further submissions and amended defence.