Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

PRIVACY: RST v UVW [2009] EWHC B24 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:11 PM
Slug : rst-v-uvw-2009-ewhc-b24-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 11, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87211

(Queen's Bench Division; Tugendhat J; 11 September 2009)

The man, who had some public reputation, had sexual encounters with a woman for money on two or three occasions. Some 2 years later the woman contacted the man, threatening to disclose the information unless she was paid. A confidential agreement was reached to maintain the privacy of their relationship. Some 8 years later, someone else contacted the man, claiming that the woman had disclosed the relevant details to him, and that these would be published. The man sought a without notice injunction preventing publication. The application was made not in defamation, but in confidence or privacy.

It was established law that no interlocutory injunction would be granted where the defendant was proposing to publish material that might be defamatory but which the defendant was alleging to be true. However, it was not clear whether that rule applied to a case advanced in confidence or privacy.

The court was concerned whether the claim in this case was properly a claim to protect privacy, or a claim brought to protect reputation, otherwise the application came within Human Rights Act 1998, s 12(3), that is that the applicant was likely to establish that the publication should not be allowed, applying the lower threshold test because this was the interlocutory stage. Also there was the question whether a commercial sexual relationship of this kind would be protected under the confidence laws.

Nonetheless, the interlocutory injunction was granted, as it might be important for the court, having regard to the importance of freedom of expression, to decide whether the protection of reputation was a Convention right or not, within European Convention on Human Rights, Art 8. There was also an issue as to whether the existence of the agreement would be enforced, notwithstanding the commercial nature of the original sexual relationship.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from