HXZ v NMX [2025] EWHC 916 (KB) (14 April 2025)

HXZ v NMX [2025] EWHC 916 (KB) (14 April 2025)

The court found that the Claimant is likely to establish at trial a reasonable expectation of privacy in the protected information and that the Defendant's conduct amounts to harassment. The balance of convenience and proportionality favoured continuation of the injunction, mandatory orders for destruction of images and deletion of certain posts, and restrictions on court file access. The Defendant's Article 10 rights were outweighed by the Claimant's privacy rights given the nature and context of the disclosures and threats.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 916 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: HXZ; Defendant: NMX
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction (privacy and Harassment) / Return Date Hearing Before Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction continued until trial; mandatory orders granted in part; extension of time granted.
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Interim Injunctions, Anonymity Orders, Harassment, Mandatory Injunctions, Social Media Publication, Open Justice, Destruction of Evidence
Privacy Law Media Law Harassment Law Misuse of Private Information Interim Injunctions Anonymity Orders Harassment Mandatory Injunctions +3 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HXZ

Claimant

NMX

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction (privacy and Harassment) / Return Date Hearing Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to continue the interim injunction restraining misuse of private information and harassment
  2. 2 Whether to order destruction/delivery up of naked images
  3. 3 Whether to order deletion of social media posts

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant is likely to establish at trial a reasonable expectation of privacy in the protected information and that the Defendant's conduct amounts to harassment. The balance of convenience and proportionality favoured continuation of the injunction, mandatory orders for destruction of images and deletion of certain posts, and restrictions on court file access. The Defendant's Article 10 rights were outweighed by the Claimant's privacy rights given the nature and context of the disclosures and threats.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued until trial; mandatory orders granted in part; extension of time granted.

Orders

  • Continuation of interim injunction restraining misuse of private information and harassment until trial
  • Order for Defendant to provide list and deliver up all naked images of Claimant and delete her own copies