Chedington Events Limited (formerly Axnoller Events Limited) v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake & Anor.

Documents obtained under a freezing order may be used for the purposes permitted by the order without further permission. For use in other proceedings, the court applies the same policy as under the collateral-use rule for disclosure: permission requires special circumstances, cogent and persuasive reasons, and no resulting injustice. The inquiry is fact-sensitive. The court balances the public interest in preserving confidentiality and privacy against the proposed use, considering its purpose, probative value, the relationship between the proceedings, and potential prejudice. A private interest in enforcing debts, supported by evidence of limited probative value, will generally not outweigh those interests.

The Guy Parties applied for permission to use a redacted bank statement disclosed by Mrs Brake under a worldwide freezing order. They sought to rely on it in an application to cancel Mrs Brake’s mental health crisis moratorium under the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

The freezing-order undertaking permitted use in the Possession and Eviction Proceedings, but prohibited use in other civil or criminal proceedings without permission. The issue was whether the statement could also be used in the Documents and Insolvency Proceedings.

1. Use permitted in two proceedings. The freezing-order undertaking was subject to its express terms. Properly construed, it permitted use of the disclosed information for any purpose in the Possession and Eviction Proceedings, not merely to police the order. No further permission was therefore required for use in those proceedings.
2. Collateral-use test. Permission was required for use in the Documents and Insolvency Proceedings. The policy was materially the same as under CPR rule 31.22. The applicants had to show special circumstances, cogent and persuasive reasons, and that release would not cause injustice to the person who disclosed the material. The inquiry was fact-sensitive and required the court to balance competing public interests.
3. The court considered the purpose of the proposed use, the statement’s probative value, the extent of the privacy intrusion, the private interests affected, and the relationship between the proceedings. The proposed use served the Guy Parties’ private interest in enforcing judgment debts, rather than a public interest such as investigating fraud or contempt. The statement showed only a modest payment marked retainer. Its additional evidential value was limited, particularly because Mrs Brake accepted that she had earned money for work. Medical evidence would remain central to the moratorium application.
4. Although the moratorium application was common to all four proceedings, the proceedings had different causes of action, histories and disclosure processes. That overlap carried some weight but did not outweigh the strong public interest in confidentiality and privacy, the private prejudice to Mrs Brake and the third party, and the limited probative value of the document.
5. The application for permission to use the statement in the Documents and Insolvency Proceedings was dismissed. The court made no ruling on the separate meaning of use, including whether relying on the document for cross-examination would itself constitute prohibited collateral use.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined an application arising in four related sets of proceedings.