United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd v Braine & Ors

United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd v Braine & Ors

UKIP failed to establish, to the required standard under s.12(3) HRA, that the defendants were likely to have obtained or threatened to disclose confidential information, or were responsible for the blackmail email. The evidential basis was insufficient, and there were material non-disclosures at the without notice hearing. Therefore, the applications for continuation of the INDO and for a search and seizure order were refused.

Parties
Claimant: United Kingdom Independence Party Limited; Defendant: Richard Braine; Defendant: Tony Sharp; Defendant: Jeff Armstrong; Defendant: Mark Dent; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Applications refused; original INDO not continued; costs to be paid by claimant.
Legal Topics
Interim Non Disclosure Orders, Breach of Confidence, Directors' Duties, Search and Seizure Orders, Material Non Disclosure, Human Rights Act Section 12, Freedom of Expression
Civil Procedure Injunctions Media Law Interim Non Disclosure Orders Breach of Confidence Directors' Duties Search and Seizure Orders Material Non Disclosure +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Kingdom Independence Party Limited

Claimant

Richard Braine

Defendant

Tony Sharp

Defendant

Jeff Armstrong

Defendant

Mark Dent

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to continue an interim non-disclosure order (INDO) against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether to grant a search and seizure order for the fourth defendant's computer
  3. 3 Whether the original INDO should be discharged for material non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

UKIP failed to establish, to the required standard under s.12(3) HRA, that the defendants were likely to have obtained or threatened to disclose confidential information, or were responsible for the blackmail email. The evidential basis was insufficient, and there were material non-disclosures at the without notice hearing. Therefore, the applications for continuation of the INDO and for a search and seizure order were refused.

Court Disposition

Applications refused; original INDO not continued; costs to be paid by claimant.

Orders

  • Refusal to continue the interim non-disclosure order (INDO) against the defendants.
  • Refusal to grant a search and seizure order for the fourth defendant’s computer.