RST v UVW (Rev 1) [2009] EWHC 2448 (QB) (11 September 2009)

RST v UVW (Rev 1) [2009] EWHC 2448 (QB) (11 September 2009)

The court granted the interim injunction without notice because the claimant established a real prospect that notice would defeat the purpose of the injunction, and the information at issue was private and subject to a confidentiality agreement. The claim was advanced in privacy/confidence, not defamation, and the court was satisfied that the applicant was likely to establish that publication should not be allowed, meeting the threshold under s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2448
Parties
Claimant: RST; Defendant: UVW
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (without Notice) / Interlocutory
Outcome
Interim injunction granted (without notice)
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Anonymity Orders, Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy, Breach of Confidence
Privacy Law Confidentiality Human Rights Interim Injunctions Anonymity Orders Freedom of Expression Right to Privacy Breach of Confidence

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RST

Claimant

UVW

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (without Notice) / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction restraining publication of private/confidential information should be granted without notice to the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the claim is properly one for privacy/confidence or for protection of reputation (defamation)
  3. 3 Whether the rule in Bonnard v Perryman applies to privacy/confidence claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the interim injunction without notice because the claimant established a real prospect that notice would defeat the purpose of the injunction, and the information at issue was private and subject to a confidentiality agreement. The claim was advanced in privacy/confidence, not defamation, and the court was satisfied that the applicant was likely to establish that publication should not be allowed, meeting the threshold under s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted (without notice)

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from publishing or disclosing specified confidential information pending trial or further order
  • Proceedings anonymised; parties to be referred to as RST and UVW