Global Processing Services (UK) Limited v Vladimir Yanpolsky & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 425 (KB)
Kazi Anis Ahmed & Ors v Ahsan Akbar
25 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2433 (KB)
High Court
Two groups fought over money and secrets. One group sent threatening packages and created a website with private info. Even though they lied about it, the court stopped them from sharing more secrets because they were being untruthful and untrustworthy.
Key Facts
- •Dispute between three claimants (brothers and Bangladeshi nationals) and the defendant (British citizen of Bangladeshi origin) over financial matters and alleged threats.
- •Linden J initially granted an injunction without notice, based on a claim of misuse of private information.
- •The defendant sent two FedEx packages to the claimants in March 2024, the origin and content of which were initially disputed.
- •The defendant initially denied sending the packages but later admitted to it, admitting to lying in previous witness statements.
- •The defendant was also linked to a website containing sensitive information about the claimants.
- •The claimants amended their claim to include breach of confidence and privacy claims.
Legal Principles
Reasonable expectation of privacy is fact-sensitive.
ZYC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5; [2022] AC 1158 (at paragraphs 49-52); Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 295; [2008] QB 103 (at paragraphs 25, 26, 29 and 31); Donald v Ntuli [2010] EWCA Civ 1276; [2011] 1 WLR 294 (at paragraphs 32 and 35); PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26; [2016] AC 1081 (at paragraphs 21 and 24); and LJY v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 3230 (QB); [2018] EMLR 19 (at paragraphs 29-30).
In breach of confidence claims, the central question is unconscionability.
Snell’s Equity, 34th edn. (paragraph 9-014)
Quia timet relief requires consideration of imminent wrongdoing, seriousness of damage, defendant's actions, and rectifiability of damage.
Gee on Commercial Injunctions, 7th Edn. (paragraphs 2-046 and 2-047)
Injunctive relief under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the applicant to be likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.
Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2008] QB 103, at paragraphs 64 and 65
Outcomes
The initial injunction granted by Linden J was discharged.
The court initially found insufficient evidence to link the defendant to the FedEx packages and doubted the threat of publication of private information.
A new injunction was granted.
The defendant's lies, his connection to the website, the threat in the emails, and the suspicious nature of the packages led the court to conclude there was a real risk of further publication of confidential information.
The defendant's post-hearing applications to set aside the judgment were refused.
The court found that the post-hearing events did not alter its reasoning for granting the injunction.