THE INCE GROUP PLC v PERSON(S) UNKNOWN

THE INCE GROUP PLC v PERSON(S) UNKNOWN

The claimant established a clear case of breach of confidence and blackmail, with confidential information at risk of unlawful dissemination. The court was satisfied that the American Cyanamid test and s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 were met, damages would not be adequate, and both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions were necessary. Modifications to service and access to documents were justified due to the defendant's anonymity and risk of misuse.

Parties
Claimant: The Ince Group PLC; Defendant: Person(s) Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Interim Application (without Notice) for Non Disclosure Order / Interim Relief (injunction) Hearing
Outcome
Interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions granted as sought by the claimant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Breach of Confidence, Blackmail, Alternative Service, Without Notice Applications
Civil Procedure Confidentiality Cybercrime Interim Injunctions Breach of Confidence Blackmail Alternative Service Without Notice Applications

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Ince Group PLC

Claimant

Person(s) Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application (without Notice) for Non Disclosure Order / Interim Relief (injunction) Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim non-disclosure (prohibitory and mandatory) injunction against persons unknown following a cyber-attack and blackmail threat
  2. 2 Whether the hearing and evidence should be partly in private due to confidentiality
  3. 3 Whether alternative service and modifications to standard orders are justified

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant established a clear case of breach of confidence and blackmail, with confidential information at risk of unlawful dissemination. The court was satisfied that the American Cyanamid test and s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 were met, damages would not be adequate, and both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions were necessary. Modifications to service and access to documents were justified due to the defendant's anonymity and risk of misuse.

Court Disposition

Interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions granted as sought by the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from publishing, communicating or disclosing the confidential information.
  • Defendant required to deliver up, delete and/or destroy the confidential information and provide a witness statement confirming compliance.