HXZ v NMX

At an interlocutory stage, an injunction protecting private information and restraining harassment should be continued where the claimant is likely to establish the relevant rights at trial, damages would be inadequate, and the balance of convenience favours protection until trial.

Where relief may affect freedom of expression, the demanding test in section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies if the relief might interfere with Convention rights. A person may describe their own experiences, but must, so far as possible, protect another person’s private information. Mandatory interim orders require particular attention to the risk of injustice, proportionality, clarity and preservation of access to legal advice and proceedings.

The claimant brought proceedings concerning alleged misuse of private information and harassment. An interim injunction had been granted without notice by Ritchie J on 13 March 2025. At the return date, the defendant sought its discharge and opposed its continuation.

The court also considered whether to sit in private, maintain anonymity, require delivery up or destruction of naked images, remove social-media posts, restrict access to parts of the court file, and extend time for service of the Particulars of Claim. The central issues were whether the statutory threshold for interim relief was met and whether the proposed mandatory and protective orders were necessary and proportionate.

1. Private hearing and anonymity. The hearing was properly conducted in private and anonymity was maintained. These measures were strictly necessary because detailed evidence about the claimant’s private information risked jigsaw identification, and a public hearing would have inhibited the parties from presenting their cases fairly. The approach was consistent with JIH v News Group Newspapers [2011] 1 WLR 1645.
2. Discharge and continuation. The application to discharge the original injunction was rejected. The claimant had not acted improperly in seeking urgent relief without notice, and alleged evidential disputes or lack of clean hands could not be resolved on the contested interlocutory evidence.
3. Because the injunction might affect the defendant’s freedom of expression, the court applied section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The claimant was likely to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in naked images, health information and information about sexual relationships. His Article 8 rights were likely to outweigh the defendant’s Article 8 and Article 10 rights. The defendant could discuss her own experiences, but had to craft any disclosure so as to protect the claimant’s privacy, as explained in McKennitt v Ash [2006] EMLR 10.
4. The evidence presently indicated a real likelihood that the defendant’s threats, demands and publications amounted to harassment. Truth was not necessarily an answer to harassment where the conduct contained additional elements of oppression, persistence or unpleasantness, following Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB). The court did not need to resolve the territorial issue concerning where the claimant must experience harassment, because he was likely to experience its effects in England and Wales on returning there. The approach was supported by Potter v Price [2004] EWHC 781 (QB).
5. The defendant was unlikely to establish a defence under section 1(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. A claimed purpose of preventing or detecting crime required rational consideration of the material and an appropriate connection between the conduct and that purpose, applying Hayes v Willoughby [2013] 1 WLR 935.
6. The injunction was continued until trial. Damages would not be adequate and the balance of convenience strongly favoured continued protection. A mandatory order requiring delivery up and deletion of naked images was also justified: the claimant had a high degree of assurance of success, and the order was reversible and proportionate, applying Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems [1993] FSR 468 and Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 1245.
7. Four of the five social-media posts were ordered to be removed; the fourth was excluded because it was unlikely to be understood as referring to the claimant. Access to confidential schedules and private judgments was restricted by an on-notice application mechanism. Time for service of the Particulars of Claim was extended to 5 May 2025.

The judgment concerned a return date following an interim injunction granted by Ritchie J on 13 March 2025, reported as [2025] EWHC 697 (KB). The present court continued the injunction until trial and made further orders.