SKA & Anor v CRH & Ors

Information concerning an intimate relationship, including private correspondence, photographs and financial details, may attract a reasonable expectation of privacy even where aspects have been discussed with friends. The court must first determine whether Article 8 is engaged and then balance the specific Article 8 and Article 10 rights. Neither right has presumptive priority. Where threats to disclose private information and harassment are established, a permanent injunction is appropriate if there are grounds to apprehend future disclosure or harassment.

The claimants brought an action for misuse of private information and harassment. At trial they sought only a permanent injunction restraining disclosure of private information and further harassment by the first defendant. A previous order had prohibited both defendants from disclosure and harassment: [2012] EWHC 766 (QB).

The central issues were whether the threats and harassment occurred, whether the first defendant was responsible, whether the information remained private, and whether permanent injunctive relief was justified.

1. Relief granted. The court found that the first defendant was responsible for the November letter, package and later documents, and that he had threatened to disclose private information and had harassed the claimants. A permanent injunction was granted against him alone.
2. Privacy. Information concerning the claimants’ relationship, including the threatened photographs and emails, attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy. The fact that the second claimant may have spoken to friends did not place the information in the public domain for the purposes of section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
3. Balancing Articles 8 and 10. The court applied the approaches in Murray v Express Newspapers Plc and McKennitt v Ash. It accepted that the defendant had some Article 10 rights, but no justification for disclosure had been advanced. Applying the guidance in Re S (A Child) (Identifications: Restrictions on Publication), neither Article 8 nor Article 10 had presumptive priority. The claimants’ privacy rights substantially outweighed the defendant’s weak Article 10 rights.
4. Harassment and permanence. The defendant’s conduct fell within the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. A permanent injunction was appropriate because there were grounds to apprehend further disclosure or harassment.

The judgment records an earlier public judgment and order by Tugendhat J against both defendants: [2012] EWHC 766 (QB). The present trial determined the remaining merits and granted a permanent injunction against the first defendant alone.