Full case report

Ambrosiadou v Coward

Reference [2013] EWHC 58
Court High Court, Queen's Bench Division

Judge Tugendhat J

Date of Judgment 25 Jan 2013


Summary

Privacy – final injunctions – third parties – Spycatcher


Facts

The parties had reached a settlement between themselves in relation to long running privacy proceedings. For earlier decisions see Ambrosiadou v Coward [2010] EWHC 1794 (QB) and Ambrosiadou v Coward [2011] EWCA Civ 409. The Claimant sought approval for a final Order which include provisions designed to restrain third parties from publishing the information in question. The Defendant, and one of the third parties, objected to that part of the proposed Order.


Issue

Should an Order be made which included a final injunction which purported to have effect on third parties?


Held

An order addressed to third parties was neither necessary or proportionate, as no such third party had disputed that the information in question was private information, and there was no evidence of a threat to publish any such information by any third party.


Comment

The Claimant sought to obtain her desired result by the inclusion of a penal notice which referred to third parties, rather than an express contra mundum injunction. It was questioned by the Defendant whether that was a possible, or appropriate, method by which to achieve protection against third parties. This issue was not decided by the Judge as he found there was no threat of publication by third parties, but he did express his “doubts” as to whether the Claimant could achieve what she wanted by the proposed wording of the penal notice.


Download this Judgment


Instructing Solicitors

Carter-Ruck for the Claimant, Lewis Silkin LLP for the Defendant