X & Y v Persons Unknown

X & Y v Persons Unknown

The Claimants' Article 8 rights were engaged in respect of specific confidential information about their marital difficulties, justifying injunctive relief. The original order was too wide and lacked a public domain proviso, but non-disclosure was not intentional or sufficiently serious to warrant discharge. The injunction should be narrowed, include a confidential schedule of protected information, and a public domain proviso. Third parties affected should be notified and heard where practicable.

Parties
Claimant: X; Claimant: Y; Defendant: Persons unknown (offering/providing information about Claimants' marriage); Third Party: MGN Limited; Third Party: News Group Newspapers Limited; Third Party: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Discharge or Vary Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction upheld but varied; not discharged.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Duty of Confidence, Public Domain Proviso, Spycatcher Principle, Persons Unknown Orders
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) Duty of Confidence Public Domain Proviso +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 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Claimant

Y

Claimant

Persons unknown (offering/providing information about Claimants' marriage)

Defendant

MGN Limited

Third Party

News Group Newspapers Limited

Third Party

Associated Newspapers Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Discharge or Vary Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants' Article 8 rights are engaged and justify injunctive relief
  2. 2 Whether the interim injunction was too wide or imprecise
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants' Article 8 rights were engaged in respect of specific confidential information about their marital difficulties, justifying injunctive relief. The original order was too wide and lacked a public domain proviso, but non-disclosure was not intentional or sufficiently serious to warrant discharge. The injunction should be narrowed, include a confidential schedule of protected information, and a public domain proviso. Third parties affected should be notified and heard where practicable.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction upheld but varied; not discharged.

Orders

  • Injunction to be narrowed and specified by confidential schedule of protected information.
  • Public domain proviso to be included in the order.