Independent Police Complaints Commission v Warner & Ors

An injunction may be granted where there is a good arguable case of breach of confidentiality, further breaches are threatened, and damages would not provide an adequate remedy. A public authority may bring proceedings to protect another person’s rights under article 8 of the Convention, even though the authority itself has no Convention rights.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission mistakenly sent the first defendant documents intended for another person in response to separate subject access requests under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The defendant refused to return the documents and threatened to disclose them to the press. An injunction was granted without notice on 3 February 2012. At the return hearing, the claimant sought continuation of protective and mandatory orders, including disclosure of the identity of persons possessing the documents. The central issues were whether confidentiality and article 8 rights were sufficiently threatened, and whether injunctive relief was appropriate.

1. The injunction was continued. The evidence established a good arguable case that duties of confidentiality owed to the claimant and the other person had been breached, that further breaches were threatened, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy.
2. The claimant was entitled to bring proceedings to protect the other person’s rights under article 8 of the Convention. The claimant, as a public authority, had no Convention rights of its own, but the proceedings could nevertheless protect the other person’s private and family life. The judge referred to Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd [2006] EWHC 17 at para [96].
3. The orders did not contain any derogation from open justice. The mandatory provisions required the first defendant to disclose the identity of persons who possessed, had possessed, or might possess the documents, and to provide the basis for his understanding of their whereabouts and related communications.
4. The first defendant had not complied with the earlier mandatory order and was therefore, on the claimant’s submission, in contempt of court. No contempt proceedings had yet been issued. The fresh order specified 20 February 2012 at 1600 as the time for compliance.
5. The claim was to proceed with service of Particulars of Claim in the usual course.

First instance decision. An injunction had previously been granted without notice on 3 February 2012; this judgment gave reasons for the order made at the return hearing on 15 February 2012.