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

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

Summary judgment is refused on both privacy and data protection claims because there are triable issues and the law is not sufficiently clear to justify summary relief. The libel claim relating to the 2005 publication is struck out as time-barred. Security for costs is ordered in the sum of £20,000. Anonymity is granted to the parties pending trial.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1768
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; libel claim (paragraph 16) struck out as time-barred; security for costs ordered; anonymity granted.
Legal Topics
Spent Convictions, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Data Processing, Jurisdiction, Limitation Period, Security for Costs, Anonymity Orders
Privacy Law Data Protection Defamation Conflict of Laws Spent Convictions Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Data Processing Jurisdiction +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 20 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 summary judgment restraining the defendant from further publication of information about a spent conviction on grounds of privacy or data protection
  2. 2 Whether the claim in libel is time-barred and should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment is refused on both privacy and data protection claims because there are triable issues and the law is not sufficiently clear to justify summary relief. The libel claim relating to the 2005 publication is struck out as time-barred. Security for costs is ordered in the sum of £20,000. Anonymity is granted to the parties pending trial.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; libel claim (paragraph 16) struck out as time-barred; security for costs ordered; anonymity granted.

Orders

  • Summary judgment applications refused
  • Paragraph 16 of particulars of claim struck out