Bains and Others v Moore and Others: QBD 15 Feb 2017

The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim.
Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is more than speculative that these Claimants could, if their recollection was prompted by seeing documents, formulate a claim with a sufficient prospect of success to go forward against the Second and Third Defendants, and it is in the interests of justice that the Claimants should be released from their undertaking in terms to be settled in the form of an order, so as to permit the Claimants’ solicitors to show to these individuals documents already disclosed by the First Defendant, and to be disclosed by the Second and Third Defendants pursuant to their offer.
References: [2017] EWHC 242 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Sir Michael Tugendhat
Statutes: Data Protection Act 1998 13(3)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Industrial Furnaces v Reaves 1970 ((1970) RPC 605.)
    The plaintiffs succeeded at the trial in respect of their claim for misuse of confidential information and other claims, and their entitlement to an injunction and delivery up of material containing confidential information. In argument about the . .
  • Cited – Imerman v Tchenguiz and Others QBD 27-Jul-2009 (, [2009] EWHC 2024 (QB), [2009] Fam Law 1135, [2010] 1 FCR 14)
    It was said that the defendant had taken private and confidential material from the claimant’s computer. The claimant sought summary judgement for the return of materials and destruction of copies. The defendant denied that summary judgement was . .
  • Cited – Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v De Crean CA 21-Feb-2012 (, [2012] EWCA Civ 156, [2012] 3 All ER 129, [2012] ICR 981, [2012] CP Rep 22, [2012] FSR 33, [2012] WLR(D) 40, )
    The claimant company sought to restrain its former employee from anticipated misuse of its confidential information.
    Held: Stanley Burnton LJ, in a paragraph with which the other members of the court agreed, said: ‘[counsel for the claimant] . .
  • Cited – Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc 1993 (Times 02-May-03, [1993] FSR 468)
    The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the . .
  • Cited – Zockoll Group Limited v Mercury Communications Limited CA 8-Jul-1997 ([1998] FSR 354, [1997] EWCA Civ 2053)
    . .
  • Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited CA 13-Feb-2003 (, [2003] EWCA Civ 103, Gazette 17-Apr-03, [2003] Ch 650, [2003] 3 WLR 999, [2003] 2 All ER 318, [2003] EMLR 16, [2003] HRLR 18)
    The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to . .
  • Cited – PA Thomas and Co v Mould QBD 1968 ([1968] 1 All ER 963, [1968] 2 WLR 737, [1968] 2 QB 913)
    The court urged caution in the grant of an injunction to protect information for which confidence was claimed but where that claim might not succeed. O’Connor J refused to enforce by committal an injunction restraining the defendants from making use . .
  • Cited – Rhodes v OPO and Another SC 20-May-2015 ([2015] 2 WLR 137, , [2015] UKSC 32, [2016] AC 219, [2015] EMLR 20, [2015] HRLR 11, [2015] WLR(D) 227, [2015] 4 All ER 1, , , UKSC 2014/0251, , , )
    The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about his life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to their 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no jurisdiction to . .
  • Cited – OPO v MLA and Another CA 9-Oct-2014 ([2015] EMLR 4, , [2014] EWCA Civ 1277, [2014] WLR(D) 422, )
    The claimant child sought to prevent publication by his father of an autobiography which, he said, would be likely to cause him psychological harm. The father was well known classical musician who said that he had himself suffered sexual abuse as a . .
  • Cited – Green Corns Ltd. v Claverley Group Ltd and Another QBD 18-May-2005 (, [2005] EWHC 958 (QB), [2005] EMLR 31, [2005] EMLR 748)
    Whether an injunction should be granted to prevent publication of addresses for proposed homes for troubled children.
    Held: The question was not whether information was generally accessible, but rather whether an injunction would serve a . .
  • Cited – Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002 (, Times 01-Jul-02, Gazette 01-Aug-02, , [2002] UKHL 29, [2002] 1 WLR 2033, 12 BHRC 443, [2003] FSR 17, [2002] CPLR 712, [2002] UKHRR 1263, [2002] EMLR 36, (2002) 67 BMLR 175, [2002] HRLR 41, [2002] 4 All ER 193)
    The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
  • Cited – Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Another ChD 11-Jan-2001 (Times 30-Jan-01, Gazette 05-Apr-01, , [2001] EWHC Ch 31, [2001] 2 All ER 385, [2002] FSR 2, [2001] HRLR 31, [2001] EMLR 21, [2001] CP Rep 28, [2001] ECDR 16)
    The test for whether an interim injunction should be granted restraining publication of material claimed to be confidential, where such a grant would infringe the right to freedom of expression was slightly different under the 1998 Act. The . .
  • Cited – McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (2) CA 26-May-1999 (Times 26-May-99, , [1999] EWCA Civ 1464, [1999] 3 All ER 775, [1999] CPLR 533, [1999] EMLR 751)
    The new Civil Procedure Rules did not change the circumstances where the Court of Appeal would interfere with a first instance decision, but would apply the new rules on that decision. Very extensive pleadings in defamation cases should now be . .
  • Cited – Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd ChD 11-Nov-1996 ([1997] RPC 289, (1997) 20(3) IPD 20022, [1996] EWHC Patents 1, )
    The freedom for a claimant in registered design right to frame his claim, as to whether he asserts an infringement of the entire design, or limits it to the section infringed, is important.
    Laddie J said: ‘This means that the proprietor can . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 29 October 2020; Ref: scu.575245