London Borough Of Lambeth v Pead

On an interim injunction application, the court may restrain disclosure where the claimant is likely to establish at trial that publication would breach confidentiality or the Data Protection Act 1998. Where practicable, reasonable steps must be taken to notify the respondent before an application is heard, as required by the Human Rights Act 1998. The court may also restrain conduct amounting to harassment where the claimant has a strong prospect of success. Disputed facts should not ordinarily be resolved finally at an interim hearing; they are matters for trial.

The claimant local authority sought interim orders against a former senior employee. One order restrained disclosure of information concerning children connected with a unit at which he had worked. The other restrained harassment of the authority’s officers and employees, a solicitors’ firm and its personnel, and two individuals.

The applications followed the defendant’s publication of a book and website material concerning his dismissal, criminal convictions and allegations against the claimants. The court first granted the orders on 30 January 2013 and, after the defendant appeared in person on 7 February, considered whether they should continue pending trial.

1. Interim injunctions continued. The court continued both injunctions until trial or further order.
2. In relation to the non-disclosure order, the claimant had taken all practicable steps to notify the defendant, satisfying Human Rights Act 1998 section 12(2)(a). The court was satisfied that the claimant was likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed under section 12(3). The information was likely to be confidential or its publication likely to be unlawful under the Data Protection Act 1998.
3. In relation to harassment, the court was satisfied that the claimants had not merely a good arguable case but a likelihood of succeeding at trial. The allegations and conduct relied upon justified continuation of the protective order, although the application was not advanced as a libel claim.
4. The defendant’s submissions did not provide a credible answer to the allegations. Even if his factual allegations concerning the earlier hearing and service were accepted as arguable, factual disputes could not be finally resolved on an interim hearing. They were matters for determination at trial.

There was no appeal. The judgment records that the court granted interim injunctions on 30 January 2013 and continued them on 7 February 2013 after the defendant appeared in person.