Avb v Tdd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1705 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 20 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ13X02874 |
[2013] EWHC 1705 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ13X02874
William Bennett (instructed by Daryl Ingram & Co Solicitors) for the Claimant
Philip Engelman (instructed by Teacher Stern) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 5 June 2013
Approved Judgment
In this action the Claimant is an elderly solicitor and the Defendant is a younger woman with whom he had had a relationship. On 24 May the Claimant applied to me without notice to the Defendant for a non-disclosure injunction. I granted an injunction to restrain the publication of information alleged to be private and confidential, and of information which was liable to or might identify the Claimant or the Defendant as a party to the proceedings. The information concerned the personal relationship that had existed between them, and communications to and about family members.
I granted the application without notice because communications had taken place between the parties, and it appeared from the response of the Defendant that, if the Claimant gave notice, there was a risk that the purpose of the proceedings might be defeated. I decided that it was necessary for the parties to be anonymised in these proceedings in accordance with CPR 39.2, and that no copies of the confidential schedules to the statements of case or of the witness statements and the applications should be provided to non-parties without further order of the Court. I also made consequential orders for the protection of the hearing papers. In the light of the allegations made by the parties in pre-action communications, I decided that these orders were necessary in the interests of justice if the purpose of the proceedings was not to be defeated.
The extent to which each of these provisions derogating from open justice remains necessary is a matter which will have to be reviewed as the proceedings progress.
On the return date, 5 June, the Defendant appeared by solicitors and counsel. She had made a witness statement. There is a dispute of fact on a number of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avb v Tdd
...on 24 May 2013. On the same day I granted him a privacy injunction for reasons set out in the judgment I handed down on 20 June 2013: [2013] EWHC 1705 (QB). At that stage both parties had different firms of solicitors acting for them, and TDD had different counsel. 5 The Particulars of Cla......
-
Spa v Tas
...for such further time as may be necessary for such purpose (unless there has been a material change in circumstances). See for example AVB v TDD [2014] EWHC 1442 (QB). 4 The parties to this action are both men. The Claimant had employed the Defendant for some years in a role which he descri......