Ambrosiadou v Coward

Ambrosiadou v Coward

No express order or penal notice binding third parties is justified or necessary as there is no evidence of a real risk of publication by third parties; the court will approve the settlement and final injunction without the disputed penal notice wording.

Parties
Claimant: Elena Ambrosiadou; Defendant: Martin Coward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Approval of Settlement and Final Injunction
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Third Party Orders, Quia Timet Relief, Contra Mundum Orders, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elena Ambrosiadou

Claimant

Martin Coward

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Approval of Settlement and Final Injunction

  1. 1 Whether a final injunction restraining publication of private information should expressly bind third parties
  2. 2 Whether the court should approve the settlement order including terms affecting third parties
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient evidence of risk to justify a quia timet order against third parties

Ratio Decidendi

No express order or penal notice binding third parties is justified or necessary as there is no evidence of a real risk of publication by third parties; the court will approve the settlement and final injunction without the disputed penal notice wording.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Permission granted for reading of the Statement in Open Court in the annexed form
  • Order approved in the form sought, save for omission of penal notice wording referencing third parties