Confidentiality, privacy & disclosure: David Burrows revisits Tchenguiz in the first of two articles
The case of Imerman v Tchenguiz and ors [2010] EWCA Civ 908 (Lord Neuberger MR gave the judgment of the court with Moses and Munby LJJ) was decided over three years ago. It is perhaps time to review the decision. This article considers to what extent the electronic information removed by the Tchenguiz brothers was indeed confidential (as distinct from private); and whether the aspects of the relevant rules (Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), Pt 9) on which the court based their findings were intra vires the rule-makers. The second article looks at when a duty of disclosure arises at common law; and whether, in law, privacy or confidentiality and a duty to disclose are mutually compatible.
Imerman: the case
In Imerman the Court of Appeal considered whether Mrs Imerman (W), or her brothers (the Tchenguizs) on her behalf, were entitled to remove and keep Mr Imerman’s (H) documents which were said by the court to be confidential.
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
