The bank sought continuation of an injunction preventing publication by the defendant of papers leaked to relating to the claimant’s tax management. The claimant claimed in confidentiality. The papers did not reveal any unlawful activity. The defendant paper argued that the documents having been already disclosed, no confidentiality remained in them.
Held: Despite the publication, the claimant had an arguable case that confidence in the documents continued. However, had the full details been made available to the court on the original application, the court would not have granted the injunction. The injunction was continued but limited to restrict only the publication of the documents themselves without the claimant’s consent and whether in whole or in part.
Judges:
Blake J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 591 (QB)
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (‘Spycatcher’) HL 13-Oct-1988
Loss of Confidentiality Protection – public domain
A retired secret service employee sought to publish his memoirs from Australia. The British government sought to restrain publication there, and the defendants sought to report those proceedings, which would involve publication of the allegations . .
Cited – Northern Rock Plc v The Financial Times Ltd and Another QBD 16-Nov-2007
The court was asked whether information remained confidential after its publication on a web-site.
Held: The court contrasted publication briefly on a web site which would not be generally accessible or used by the general public, and more . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
Cited – Imutran Ltd v Uncaged Campaigns Ltd and Another ChD 11-Jan-2001
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Information
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.326984
