KJO v XIM: QBD 7 Jul 2011

The claimant had, some 20 years previously, been convicted and sentenced for forgery of a will. The defendants, relatives, had ever since written to those with whom he had dealings to tell them of the conviction and facts. The claimant, unable to sue in defamation, now sought an injunction alleging breach of Data Protection and of his human rights. The defendant asked for security for his costs, and the claimant sought summary judgement.
Held: The 1974 Act made no mention of confidentiality or of prior restraint. There was insufficient evidence of an intention on the part of the defendant and nor was such a novel and debatable claim appropriate for summary trial. Similarly as to the claim for summary judgment under the 1998 Act.
The claimant was ordered to pay the sum of 20,000 pounds into court by way of security for costs.
To advance a plea of malice for the purposes of the 1974 Act ‘any plea of malice, therefore, would have to be advanced on the alternative ground, canvassed by Lord Diplock in Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135, that the defendant, while knowing the words to be true, published them with the dominant motive of injuring the claimant’s reputation. That is almost untrodden territory in the (more usual) context of qualified privilege . . .’.

Eady J
[2011] EWHC 1768 (QB)
Data Protection Act of 1998, Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
England and Wales
CitedNiemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
CitedVon Hannover v Germany ECHR 24-Jun-2004
Princess Caroline of Monaco who had, at some time, received considerable attention in the media throughout Europe, complained at the publication of photographs taken of her withour her permission.
Held: There was no doubt that the publication . .
CitedCampbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
CitedHorrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
CitedHerbage v Pressdram Ltd CA 1984
There was a publication of articles which referred to convictions which were spent under the 1974 Act. The court restated the principle in Bonnard v Perryman: ‘These principles have evolved because of the value the court has placed on freedom of . .
CitedL v The Law Society CA 10-Jun-2008
The claimant had been removed from the roll of student members of the Law Society, and wished his appeal to be heard in private.
Held: It is only in a rare case that it is appropriate to hold a hearing of this kind in private.
As to the . .
CitedAsh and Another v McKennitt and others CA 14-Dec-2006
The claimant was a celebrated Canadian folk musician. The defendant, a former friend, published a story of their close friendship. The claimant said the relationship had been private, and publication infringed her privacy rights, and she obtained an . .
CitedAttorney-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 . .
CitedVenables and Thompson v News Group International, Associated Newspapers Ltd, MGN Ltd QBD 4-Dec-2001
An order had been made requiring all newspapers not to publish anything which might lead to the identification of the claimants or their whereabouts. The defendant newspaper published information as to their last known whereabouts. They argued that . .
CitedDurant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
CitedDouglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Ltd, Hola Sa, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Ltd, Ramey ChD 27-Jan-2003
The claimants sought an order striking out the defendants’ defence on the grounds that, by destroying documents, the possibility of a fair trial had been prejudiced.
Held: Refusing the order, save as to certain paragraphs of the defence, the . .

Cited by:
CitedGreenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism CA 9-Jul-2021
Failure to plead decisive malice allegation
Appeal by the claimant against an order following a judgment striking out particulars of malice pleaded in the amended reply, among other determinations. Judgment was then entered in favour of the Campaign Against Antisemitsm in respect of a claim . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Human Rights

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.441881