British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> TKA & Ors v XKA & Ors [2012] EWHC 1786 (QB) (27 June 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1786.html
Cite as: [2012] EWHC 1786 (QB)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| TKA and others |
Claimant |
|
| - and - |
||
| XKA and others |
Defendant |
____________________
Shomik Datta (instructed by BTMK Solicitors) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 22 June 2012
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- The parties to this action are the members of two families who formerly lived as near neighbours. They include on each side both the parents and the young children.
- The claim arises out of an incident involving two young children, one from each family. This incident gave rise to actions by the Defendants, or one or more of them, which the Claimants alleged amounted to harassment of themselves and their children, and misuse of the private information of their children. The claim was primarily for injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act, to which was added associated claims for injunctions to restrain disclosure of information relating to the young children.
- On 8 June I granted injunctions on an application made without notice to the Defendants. I did so on the grounds that there was evidence of unreasonable conduct on the part of the Defendants, such that if notice were given there appeared to be a real risk that that might defeat the purpose for which the proceedings were brought. The derogations from open justice, including a hearing in private and anonymity for the parties, were necessary to protect the interests of the children, and because publicity would have defeated the purpose of the proceedings.
- 22 June 2012 was the return date. The parties agreed a final settlement of their differences which was set out in an order I made that day. The order also recorded that both sides gave undertakings to the court. I approved this settlement under CPR Part 21, in so far as it related to the children. There was no evidence or suggestion that there might be any public interest in the further disclosure of the information the subject of this action.
Mr Justice Tugendhat :