Full case report
Ambrosiadou v Coward
Reference  EWHC 58
Court High Court, Queen's Bench Division
Judge Tugendhat J
Date of Judgment 25 Jan 2013
Privacy – final injunctions – third parties – Spycatcher
The parties had reached a settlement between themselves in relation to long running privacy proceedings. For earlier decisions see Ambrosiadou v Coward  EWHC 1794 (QB) and Ambrosiadou v Coward  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.
Should an Order be made which included a final injunction which purported to have effect on third parties?
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.
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.
Carter-Ruck for the Claimant, Lewis Silkin LLP for the Defendant
More from 5RB
5RB is the pre-eminent set in the area for handling defamation, privacy, contempt and data protection matters. Interviewees praise the set for having great depth and quality of counsel, and note that it boasts many of the top barristers in the field. Get the lowdown here.
New 22nd Edition of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, published by Sweet & Maxwell. Further info here.