Tchenguiz & Ors v Imerman (Rev 4)

Tchenguiz & Ors v Imerman (Rev 4)

The so-called Hildebrand rules do not provide a defence or justification for the unlawful obtaining, copying, or retention of confidential documents in ancillary relief proceedings. The law of confidence, tort, and statutory criminal law apply equally in family proceedings. Documents and information obtained...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Robert Tchenguiz; Appellant: Vincent Tchenguiz; Appellant: Tim McClean; Appellant: Nouri Obayda; Appellant: Sarosh Zaiwalla; Respondent: Vivian Imerman; Appellant: Vivian Saul Imerman; Respondent: Elizabeth Tchenguiz Imerman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From High Court Decisions in Ancillary Relief and Queen's Bench Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order of Eady J in Queen's Bench Division upheld; order of Moylan J in Family Division varied.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Ancillary Relief, Disclosure of Documents, Hildebrand Rules, Computer Misuse, Data Protection, Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence, Privilege, Remedies for Breach of Confidence
Family Law Civil Procedure Equity Data Protection Criminal Law Breach of Confidence Ancillary Relief Disclosure of Documents +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Tchenguiz

Appellant

Vincent Tchenguiz

Appellant

Tim McClean

Appellant

Nouri Obayda

Appellant

Sarosh Zaiwalla

Appellant

Vivian Imerman

Respondent

Vivian Saul Imerman

Appellant

Elizabeth Tchenguiz Imerman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From High Court Decisions in Ancillary Relief and Queen's Bench Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the so-called Hildebrand rules justify the unlawful obtaining and retention of confidential documents in ancillary relief proceedings
  2. 2 Whether a spouse can retain and use copies of confidential documents unlawfully obtained from the other spouse
  3. 3 Whether the law of confidence, tort, or statutory provisions (Computer Misuse Act 1990, Data Protection Act 1998) are displaced in family proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The so-called Hildebrand rules do not provide a defence or justification for the unlawful obtaining, copying, or retention of confidential documents in ancillary relief proceedings. The law of confidence, tort, and statutory criminal law apply equally in family proceedings. Documents and information obtained unlawfully must be returned or destroyed, and their use restrained, subject to the court's discretion to admit or exclude evidence in the interests of justice. The proper remedy for concerns about concealment of assets is to seek court orders (e.g., search, freezing, or preservation orders), not self-help.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order of Eady J in Queen's Bench Division upheld; order of Moylan J in Family Division varied.

Orders

  • All copies of unlawfully obtained documents (including the seven files) to be delivered up to Mr Imerman's solicitors (Hughes Fowler Carruthers), not to be released without court permission or agreement of Mrs Imerman's solicitors.
  • Mrs Imerman and her solicitors restrained from using information obtained from the seven files.