The link is to this judgment on Bailii.
There are two interesting arguments in this judgment - which relates to an interim gag.
Paragraph 10.
In my judgment the appellant was reasonably entitled to expect that his colleagues would treat as confidential the information they had acquired whether from their own observation of the behaviour of the appellant and X or from tittle-tattle and gossip which larded the office conversation or from a confidential confession to a colleague. A reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would certainly find the disclosure offensive.
This is an interesting paragraph as it implies that those people who discuss work gossip with people outside the workplace become liable to pay damages to those that the gossip relates to. I am not sure that people will like this change to the law (and/or clarification)
Paragraph 17.
The purpose of the injunction is both to preserve the stability of the family while the appellant and his wife pursue a reconciliation and to save the children the ordeal of playground ridicule when that would inevitably follow publicity.
The UN Charter for the child is then used to justify a gag. This could, of course, apply in other circunstances.
What is happening is that privacy law has now been extended further into ordinary life.
There are two interesting arguments in this judgment - which relates to an interim gag.
Paragraph 10.
In my judgment the appellant was reasonably entitled to expect that his colleagues would treat as confidential the information they had acquired whether from their own observation of the behaviour of the appellant and X or from tittle-tattle and gossip which larded the office conversation or from a confidential confession to a colleague. A reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would certainly find the disclosure offensive.
This is an interesting paragraph as it implies that those people who discuss work gossip with people outside the workplace become liable to pay damages to those that the gossip relates to. I am not sure that people will like this change to the law (and/or clarification)
Paragraph 17.
The purpose of the injunction is both to preserve the stability of the family while the appellant and his wife pursue a reconciliation and to save the children the ordeal of playground ridicule when that would inevitably follow publicity.
The UN Charter for the child is then used to justify a gag. This could, of course, apply in other circunstances.
What is happening is that privacy law has now been extended further into ordinary life.
Comments