SPA v TAS

Interim non-disclosure injunctions and undertakings should ordinarily be limited to a specified period. An order expressed to continue until trial or further order may become practically permanent if the claimant fails to prosecute the proceedings. Where the case remains unresolved at expiry, the protection may be extended for such further period as necessary, absent a material change in circumstances. The court should not finally determine disputed factual issues on an interim application. In cases involving alleged blackmail, anonymity and private hearings may be justified where necessary to protect the complainant and preserve the purpose of the proceedings.

The claimant sought protection against the defendant’s alleged use or threatened disclosure of personal and confidential information obtained during his employment. An interim non-disclosure order was initially made without prior notice. On the return date, the defendant raised factual disputes and challenged the justification for his financial demands. The hearing was adjourned to allow him to file evidence. The defendant subsequently gave undertakings in agreed terms, and the court considered the appropriate duration of the protection, the limits of interim determination, anonymity and the relevant open-justice safeguards.

1. The defendant’s undertakings were accepted, and the court granted the agreed non-disclosure order until 10 November 2014.
2. The court normally departs from the Model Order’s formulation that protection continues until trial or further order. Interim non-disclosure relief should be limited to a specified time. This prevents a claimant’s failure to prosecute the action in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 from turning interim relief into a permanent restriction. If the case remains unresolved, protection may be extended for such further period as is necessary, unless circumstances have materially changed.
3. The court could not resolve on an interim application the disputed factual issues concerning disclosure or threatened disclosure, or whether the defendant’s financial demands were warranted. Those issues would require determination in the present or related employment proceedings if they were not settled.
4. Having considered section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the evidence, the court was satisfied that the claimant was likely to establish that publication of the information should not be permitted. The anonymity and private-hearing arrangements were therefore justified in the circumstances, including the risk that disclosure of the defendant’s identity would reveal the claimant’s identity and undermine the protection sought.