KJO v XIM [2011] EWHC 1768 (QB) (07 July 2011)

KJO v XIM [2011] EWHC 1768 (QB) (07 July 2011)

The court refused summary judgment on privacy and data protection claims because the applicable law for most alleged acts was that of Hong Kong, not England, and there were unresolved factual and legal issues. The libel claim relating to a 2005 publication was struck out as time-barred. Security for costs was ordered in the sum of £20,000 due to the claimant's residence in Hong Kong and lack of assets in England. Anonymity was granted to protect the claimant's interests pending trial.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1768 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: KJO; Defendant: XIM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment, Strike Out, Security for Costs)
Outcome
Summary judgment refused on privacy and data protection claims; libel claim (paragraph 16) struck out as time-barred; security for costs ordered; anonymity granted.
Legal Topics
Spent Convictions, Rehabilitation of Offenders, Data Processing, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Limitation Periods, Anonymity Orders
Privacy Law Data Protection Defamation Conflict of Laws Spent Convictions Rehabilitation of Offenders Data Processing Summary Judgment +3 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KJO

Claimant

XIM

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications (summary Judgment, Strike Out, Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from communicating information about a spent conviction under privacy and data protection law
  2. 2 Whether the claim in libel is time-barred and should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted on privacy and data protection claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused summary judgment on privacy and data protection claims because the applicable law for most alleged acts was that of Hong Kong, not England, and there were unresolved factual and legal issues. The libel claim relating to a 2005 publication was struck out as time-barred. Security for costs was ordered in the sum of £20,000 due to the claimant's residence in Hong Kong and lack of assets in England. Anonymity was granted to protect the claimant's interests pending trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused on privacy and data protection claims; libel claim (paragraph 16) struck out as time-barred; security for costs ordered; anonymity granted.

Orders

  • Paragraph 16 of the particulars of claim struck out as time-barred.
  • Claimant to provide security for costs in the sum of £20,000.