• Monday, July 8, 2013

In the High Court matter of AVB v TDD [2013] EWHC 1705 (QB)Trinity barrister, Philip Engelman acted on behalf of a defendant known only as TDD in proceedings granting a non-disclosure injunction to an “elderly solicitor” preventing his former younger lover from disclosing details of the relationship. In May 2013, the claimant, known only as AVB, applied without notice for a non-disclosure injunction. An injunction was granted to restrain the publication of details alleged to be private and confidential as well as being likely to identify the claimant and defendant. 

The injunction was appealed and heard by Tugendhat J with the defendant submitting her own evidence and raising counter-representations. The hearing was subsequently adjourned to allow the parties to agree the terms of an appropriate Order. Pursuant to Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders issued in August 2011 and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hutcheson v Popdog Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1580, [2012] 1 WLR 782, Tugendhat J insisted that the terms of the agreed order incorporated provisions for case management, including directions for progress and dates on which the undertakings were to expire if not renewed or discharged. In making the agreed order Tugendhat J highlighted that in proceedings not progressed under the CPR, then the parties need to demonstrate to the Court why the injunction should continue under JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 2179 (QB). 

Philip Engelman is a member of Trinity Chambers’ Business,ChanceryEmploymentJudicial Review and Regulatory practice groups.