Rana Al-Aggad v Talal Al-Aggad & Ors
[2024] EWHC 226 (Comm)
Kea Investments Ltd v Eric John Watson
13 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1768 (Ch)
High Court
A company is trying to get money from someone who's ignoring them. The judge said it's okay to try different ways to contact the person and keep some secret information secret because that person might use it to cause trouble. The judge also set a date for the final hearing.
Key Facts
- •Kea Investments Limited (Claimant) sought final determination of equitable compensation from Eric John Watson (Defendant).
- •Nugee J previously found Watson liable for equitable compensation.
- •Kea recovered sums from third parties, subject to confidentiality obligations.
- •Watson has not actively participated and appeared to evade service.
- •Kea proposed alternative service methods (email, WhatsApp).
- •Kea sought to maintain confidentiality of some information.
- •Fladgate LLP (Intervening Party) also sought confidentiality protection related to a settlement with Kea.
- •Watson's conduct involved alleged attempts to harass Kea and related entities.
Legal Principles
Open justice is a fundamental principle, but derogations are allowed in exceptional circumstances.
Various cases cited, including Church of Scientology, Practice Guidance (2012), In the Estate of Berezovsky, Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring
Derogations from open justice must be strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and no more than strictly necessary.
Various cases cited
The burden of establishing a derogation from open justice lies on the party seeking it, requiring clear and cogent evidence.
Various cases cited
Protection of commercial confidentiality may justify denying access to documents.
Cape v Dring
A party with the benefit of a confidentiality obligation is entitled to seek to enforce it.
Judge's reasoning
Court has jurisdiction to add a new party if an issue involving the new party and existing party is connected to the matter in dispute and it's desirable to add the new party.
CPR 19.2(2)(b)
There is an important public interest in the observance of duties of confidence, particularly where contained in a written contract.
HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Limited
A hearing must be held in private if it involves confidential information and publicity would damage that confidentiality.
CPR 39.2(3)(c)
Outcomes
Alternative service methods (email to Mr. Crighton and WhatsApp message) deemed good service.
Good reason to believe documents likely reached Watson; Crighton's statement on forwarding emails; WhatsApp message delivered to likely Watson's number.
Confidentiality order granted for some information until the judgment application hearing.
Contractual confidentiality, public interest in protecting confidentiality, and risk of Watson abusing information to harass parties.
Directions set for the judgment application hearing (July 3-5, 2023).
Case management.
Notice to be given to Watson's son and sister, urging them to inform Watson to contact Farrer & Co.
Further attempt to ensure Watson receives notice.
Confidentiality order granted for Fladgate LLP regarding their settlement with Kea.
Similar reasoning as for Kea's confidentiality application.
Fladgate LLP joined to the proceedings to protect confidential information.
Jurisdiction under CPR 19.2(2)(b); issue involving Fladgate and Kea.
Permission to appeal denied regarding the non-blanket confidentiality order.
Case management decision; balancing open justice and confidentiality; need for fact-specific proportionality assessment at trial.