TUV v Persons Unknown [2010] EWHC 853 (QB) (22 April 2010)

TUV v Persons Unknown [2010] EWHC 853 (QB) (22 April 2010)

The court held that confidentiality undertakings are appropriate for third parties served under CPR 25 APD 9.2, as existing CPR provisions do not protect the applicant's Article 8 rights in this context. There is no blanket obligation to notify all media third parties of injunction applications; notification is only required for those with demonstrated interest in the material.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 853 (QB)
Parties
Applicant: TUV; Respondent(s): Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (privacy and Copyright) / Return Date Hearing Following Ex Parte Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction continued with modifications; confidentiality undertakings required from third parties; no blanket notification obligation imposed.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Anonymity Orders, Third Party Rights, Prior Notification to Media, Confidentiality Undertakings
Privacy Law Copyright Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Anonymity Orders Third Party Rights Prior Notification to Media Confidentiality Undertakings

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TUV

Applicant

Persons Unknown

Respondent(s)

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (privacy and Copyright) / Return Date Hearing Following Ex Parte Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to continue interim injunction restraining use of stolen information and copyright material
  2. 2 Whether additional confidentiality undertakings are required for third parties served under CPR 25 APD 9.2
  3. 3 Whether there is a blanket obligation to give prior notification to all media third parties of injunction applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that confidentiality undertakings are appropriate for third parties served under CPR 25 APD 9.2, as existing CPR provisions do not protect the applicant's Article 8 rights in this context. There is no blanket obligation to notify all media third parties of injunction applications; notification is only required for those with demonstrated interest in the material.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued with modifications; confidentiality undertakings required from third parties; no blanket notification obligation imposed.

Orders

  • Continuation of interim injunction until trial or further order, restraining use, disclosure, or dealing with stolen goods and information.
  • Extension of time for service of claim form until 21 days after identification of respondents.