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 restraining publication of the confidential information, finding that the applicant was likely to establish that publication should not be allowed under s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998. The claim was advanced in privacy/confidence, not defamation, and the applicant was entitled to choose his cause of action. The court accepted there was a real risk that notice to the defendant would defeat the purpose of the injunction. The question of whether the rule in Bonnard v Perryman applies to privacy/confidence claims remains open for substantive determination.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2448 (QB)
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
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 should be granted to restrain publication of private/confidential information
  2. 2 Whether the claim is properly one of privacy/confidence or reputation/defamation
  3. 3 Whether the rule in Bonnard v Perryman applies to privacy/confidence claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the interim injunction restraining publication of the confidential information, finding that the applicant was likely to establish that publication should not be allowed under s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998. The claim was advanced in privacy/confidence, not defamation, and the applicant was entitled to choose his cause of action. The court accepted there was a real risk that notice to the defendant would defeat the purpose of the injunction. The question of whether the rule in Bonnard v Perryman applies to privacy/confidence claims remains open for substantive determination.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from publishing or disclosing the confidential information identified in the order until trial or further order
  • Anonymity orders granted for both claimant and defendant