CDP v Snap Group Ltd & Anor (Rev1) [2025] NIKB 24 (11 April 2025)

CDP v Snap Group Ltd & Anor (Rev1) [2025] NIKB 24 (11 April 2025)

The application for a stay was refused because the second defendant failed to establish a real risk of prejudice arising from the civil proceedings at this stage. The court found that the second defendant had not been formally charged, had already provided a 'no comment' interview, and could serve a defence consistent with his position without prejudicing his rights in any future criminal trial. The plaintiff's right to a timely civil determination and the significant existing delays also weighed against granting a stay.

Citation
[2025] NIKB 24
Parties
Plaintiff: CDP; First Defendant: Snap Group Ltd; Second Defendant: KBE
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
11 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Outcome of Related Criminal Investigation
Outcome
Application for stay refused
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings, Right to Fair Trial, Article 6 ECHR, Anonymity Orders, Reporting Restrictions
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Data Protection Tort Law Stay of Proceedings Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings Right to Fair Trial Article 6 ECHR +2 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CDP

Plaintiff

Snap Group Ltd

First Defendant

KBE

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Outcome of Related Criminal Investigation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether civil proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of related criminal investigation/proceedings against the second defendant
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant would suffer real prejudice if required to serve a defence in the civil proceedings before the conclusion of the criminal process
  3. 3 Balancing the plaintiff's right to expeditious determination of her civil claim against the second defendant's rights under Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was refused because the second defendant failed to establish a real risk of prejudice arising from the civil proceedings at this stage. The court found that the second defendant had not been formally charged, had already provided a 'no comment' interview, and could serve a defence consistent with his position without prejudicing his rights in any future criminal trial. The plaintiff's right to a timely civil determination and the significant existing delays also weighed against granting a stay.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused

Orders

  • Defendants to serve their defences within 21 days of the ruling
  • Court will continue to case manage and may reconsider a stay if real prejudice arises from future criminal proceedings