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 appropriate where the confidential status was in doubt, and where he wished to assert a public interest defence.
Held: ‘there is a powerful case for saying that any information stored on a computer to which access is password-protected may be regarded as confidential, irrespective of its actual content, by virtue of that fact alone.’ The complainant was entitled to the relief sought on a summary basis.
Eady J
[2009] EWHC 2024 (QB), [2009] Fam Law 1135, [2010] 1 FCR 14
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .
Cited – Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd 15-Nov-2001
(High Court of Australia) The activities of a company which processed possum meat for export (‘what the processing of possums looks,and sounds like’) were not such as to attract the quality of being confidential for the purpose of the law protecting . .
Cited – L v L and Hughes Fowler Carruthers QBD 1-Feb-2007
The parties were engaged in ancillary relief proceedings. The Husband complained that the wife had sought to use unlawfully obtained information, and in these proceedings sought delivery up of the material from the wife and her solicitors. He said . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee (1) ChD 19-Jun-2009
The taxpayer sought anonymity in the reporting of the case against her.
Held: No, she could not be given anonymity.
Henderson J said: ‘In determining whether it is necessary to hold a hearing in private, or to grant anonymity to a party, . .
Cited – Lord Ashburton v Pape CA 1913
Pape’s bankruptcy discharge was opposed by Lord Ashburton. He subpoenaed Brooks, a clerk to Lord Ashburton’s solicitor and obtained privileged letters written by Lord Ashburton to Mr Nocton, which Pape proposed to use. Pape and Brooks had colluded. . .
Cited – Copland v The United Kingdom ECHR 3-Apr-2007
The applicant had been an employee. In the course of a dispute with her employer, she discovered that the principal had been collecting information about her telephone calls, emails and internet usage.
Held: The collection of such material . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – ITC Film Distributors Ltd v Video Exchange Ltd ChD 1982
The defendant had got possession of his opponent’s papers, including certain privileged material, by a trick. A party to an action will not be allowed to use a document obtained by stealth or a trick. Warner J said, referrig to Ashburton v Pape: . .
Cited – Araghchinchi v Araghchinchi CA 26-Feb-1997
Ward LJ referred to: ‘a category of cases which makes its way regularly through the divorce courts, where the court grapples with the dishonest and devious husband determined to conceal his assets and determined to frustrate both the court and the . .
Cited – Emanuel v Emanuel 1982
Wood J said: ‘There was, however, one further matter of law to which I must refer. The Rank Film Distributors case was argued in the House of Lords in March 1981: see [1981] 2 All ER 76, [1981] 2 WLR 668. The issue was the existence of the privilege . .
Cited – Industrial Furnaces v Reaves 1970
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 by:
See Also – Imerman v Tchenguiz and Others QBD 16-Nov-2009
The claimant sought an ‘unless order’, saying that the defendant had failed to comply with orders for delivery up of documents. Though the order had been agreed, the defendants said that the documents might be needed for an appeal. The claimants . .
Appeal from – Imerman v Tchenguiz CA 27-Jan-2010
Application for leave to appeal – granted. . .
Appeal from – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information, Family
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.368659