ON APPEAL FROM
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MR JUSTICE EADY
Claim No HQ10X02201
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON
LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD
| ELENA AMBROSIADOU
|- and -
Mr Desmond Browne QC and Mr Jacob Dean (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 20th March 2011
Crown Copyright ©
The Master of the Rolls:
"(1) Deal[ing] with or part[ing] with possession of [any documents] ('the Documents') filed or served in the divorce proceedings in Greece between [the parties], and
(2) us[ing or] publish[ing] communicat[ing] or disclos[ing] other than to his legal advisers any information or claims extracted or derived from the Documents or any of them ".
PROVIDED ALWAYS that nothing in [para (2)] of this Order shall be taken to either prevent or allow the [defendant] to use publish communicate or disclose information or claims which he possesses independently of the contents of the Documents;
PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT the above prohibitions shall not apply if and to the extent that at the date of this Order or at any time hereafter the Documents or any of them are or become generally accessible to the public other than as a result of a breach of this Order or a breach of confidence or privacy on the part of any person ."
The factual background
The judgment of Eady J
"If I apprehended a real risk that private matters, whether concerning the marriage and the parties' purely personal relations, or any of the son's private affairs, were to be publicised by the defendant, I would have no hesitation in granting an injunction to protect that information simply by way of carrying out the 'ultimate balancing exercise' required as between competing Convention rights."
As he went on to explain in the next paragraph, and in para 56(1)-(3), this view was based on the fact that any public interest in those private matters was plainly overridden by the privacy rights of the claimant and the boy, and the material had not, in his view, "genuinely entered into the public domain", despite the defendant's failure to redact that material effectively.
These proceedings: permission to appeal
The defendant's offer
The claimant's case on this appeal
The extent to which Article 8 is engaged
The claim for injunctive relief
Conclusion on the issue of an injunction
Preliminary view on costs
The hearing was in public
Lord Justice Leveson:
Lord Justice Pitchford: