QWE v SDF & Ors

Where a claimant seeks an interim privacy injunction in circumstances involving an alleged attempt at blackmail, compelling reasons may justify proceeding without notice. A private hearing and related derogations from open justice may also be ordered where disclosure would frustrate the proceedings. The court applies the usual interim privacy principles: the claimant must show a reasonable expectation of privacy and a likelihood that publication cannot be justified under article 8(2) or article 10 of the ECHR. The relevant statutory threshold is found in Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(2)(b).

The claimant sought an interim injunction restraining disclosure of information concerning alleged sexual relationships with the first and second defendants. The application was made without notice and was heard in private. The claimant alleged that the first defendant had threatened disclosure unless a large sum was paid. The court considered whether the statutory conditions for proceeding without notice were satisfied, whether privacy and open justice justified the order’s derogations, and whether the claim was likely to succeed at trial.

1. The court granted an interim injunction restraining disclosure of information concerning the claimant’s alleged sexual relationships with the first and second defendants.
2. Under section 12(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998, there were compelling reasons not to notify the defendants before the hearing. The claimant’s case was that the first defendant had threatened disclosure unless paid a large sum. That alleged blackmail made the case sufficiently similar to ASG v GSA [2009] EWCA Civ 1574, in which a without-notice application for a privacy injunction in a blackmail case was accepted as appropriate.
3. For the same reasons, a private hearing and the other derogations from open justice specified in the order were necessary to prevent the purpose of the proceedings being frustrated.
4. Applying the principles illustrated by McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73, the claimant had, on the evidence then available, raised a case likely to succeed at trial. The claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, and justification for publication was unlikely to be established under article 8(2) or article 10 of the ECHR.
5. The claimant gave the undertakings required by the order. The return date was fixed for 5 December 2011.