header-logo header-logo

05 June 2015
Issue: 7655 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights

CHS v DNH [2015] EWHC 1214 (Ch), [2015] All ER (D) 212 (May)

The claimant had a high public profile. The defendant, her boyfriend, had threatened to expose her adulterous relationship with a married man, who was also said to be a very high profile public figure. The claimant applied, without notice, for an interim injunction against the defendant, or for interim non-disclosure orders to restrain him from publishing pictures from her journal or other such private information about the affair. The Chancery Division, in granting the orders sought, held that it was satisfied on the evidence that the information in question was clearly private and personal information in relation to which the claimant had had a reasonable expectation of privacy and confidentiality. The claimant’s right to respect for her private life clearly weighed more heavily in the balance than the defendant’s desire to exercise any freedom of expression in publishing that private life.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll