Spa v Tas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 1512 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ14D01737 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 14 May 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 1512 (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: HQ14D01737
Justin Rushbrooke QC and Richard Munden (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Claimant
Defendant appeared in person accompanied by his solicitor Mr Asad Shaidy of Legal Comfort Solicitors
Hearing dates: 1 and 8 May 2014
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
.jpg)
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat Mr Justice Tugendhat On 24 April 2014 Mr Rushbrooke QC applied for a non-disclosure order to Andrews J, the judge hearing interim applications in the vacation. Andrews J granted the order substantially in the form of the Model Order (in accordance with the Practice Guidance (Interim Non-Disclosure Orders) [2012] 1 WLR 1003) until the 1 st May, the return date specified in her order. On that day the Defendant appeared before with his solicitor Mr Shaidy. At the Defendant's request, I adjourned the hearing to 8 May to enable him to put in evidence. On 8 May the Defendant offered undertakings to the court for a period ending on 10 November 2014 in the form then sought by the Claimant. I accepted those undertakings and granted the order as it was then agreed between the parties.
The form of the Model Order provides in its operative paragraph:
"Until [ ] (the return date) / the trial of this claim or further Order of the Court, the Defendants must not: (a) use, publish or communicate or disclose etc"
However, the court now normally departs from the form of the Model Order in one important respect. It normally requires that non-disclosure injunctions or undertakings be limited to a specified time (and not to be 'until trial or further order') to ensure that, if the claimant does not prosecute the action in accordance with the CPR, an order granted in accordance with the criteria applicable to interim relief will not in practice become permanent as a result of the claimant's default. If the case has not been settled or decided at a trial within the specified period, then any non-disclosure is likely to be extended 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).
The parties to this action are both men. The Claimant had employed the Defendant for some years in a role which he describes as being that of a personal assistant. The Claimant originates from the Middle East, but he has substantial interests in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial