Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles


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 :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from