Bull v Desporte

A final injunction may properly restrain publication of defined categories of private information rather than being limited to passages already identified in the claimant’s book. Identified passages may be illustrative of the prohibited categories, particularly where further editions or publications are contemplated and the defendant understands the injunction’s scope.

A claimant who obtains damages exceeding a defendant’s Part 36 offer has ordinarily achieved the more advantageous result and is entitled to costs. A late offer to edit or delete material does not displace that conclusion where the defendant previously withheld the manuscript and proceeded with publication.

Permission to appeal may be refused where the proposed appeal has no real prospects of success and there is no other compelling reason for it to be heard.

This was a post-judgment ruling in a claim by Gareth Bull against Donna Desporte for misuse of private information and copyright infringement. The court had already found for the claimant, awarded damages of £12,550 and granted a permanent injunction.

The defendant challenged the proposed form of injunction, contending that it should be confined to 36 passages identified in the confidential judgment. She also relied on a Part 36 offer in resisting the claimant’s costs application and sought permission to appeal.

The issues were the proper scope of the injunction, the effect of the defendant’s offer on costs, and whether permission to appeal should be granted.

1. Form of injunction. The court granted an injunction restraining publication or disclosure of four categories of information: the parties’ sexual relationship; the claimant’s relationship with and divorce from his former wife; information concerning the claimant’s children; and information concerning his physical health. The 36 passages identified in the confidential judgment were illustrative, not exhaustive. The broader form was justified because the defendant indicated that she might produce further editions of the book, and the court was satisfied that she understood what the injunction prohibited.
2. The court recalled and amended the earlier judgments before sealing the order to remove any possible ambiguity. It relied on the general power discussed in Re Barrell Enterprises [1973] 1 WLR 19.
3. Costs. Under CPR r 44.4(2), the claimant was entitled to his costs as the successful party. The defendant’s Part 36 offer did not provide a financial settlement, whereas the claimant recovered £12,550 in damages. He therefore obtained a more advantageous result. The offer to edit the book was also made too late, after the defendant had refused to provide the manuscript, misled the claimant and his solicitors about its contents, and published the book despite warnings of possible injunctive and damages claims. The court ordered a payment on account of costs of £94,000.
4. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused under CPR r 52.6(1). The proposed appeal had no prospects of success and there was no other compelling reason for an appeal to be heard.

The judgment records an earlier interim non-disclosure order made by His Honour Judge Moloney QC in December 2017 and follows the court’s earlier open and closed judgments in the same claim. It is a first-instance post-judgment ruling, not an appeal.