LCG & Ors v OVD & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2058 (KB)
Shah Tasmina Hussain & Ors v Shamimur Rahman & Ors
25 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 116 (KB)
High Court
A businessman fought with his cousins in court. He said they blackmailed him with photos of his daughter. The court mostly sided with the cousins, saying there wasn't enough proof of blackmail. However, they said someone who sent threatening messages with the photos did break the law.
Key Facts
- •Shelim Hussain, a prominent businessman, had a falling out with his cousins, Shamimur Rahman and Masum Ahmed, who left his company, Euro Foods Group Ltd, to start their own, Eco Foods Services Ltd.
- •Hussain initially sued his cousins for breach of contract, but withdrew the claim.
- •Hussain alleged that his cousins blackmailed him by obtaining and threatening to publish photographs from his daughter's private Instagram account.
- •The cousins denied blackmail and claimed Hussain's actions were oppressive and anti-competitive.
- •The case involved allegations of misuse of private information, harassment, duress, and undue influence.
- •Late disclosure of WhatsApp messages and photos by the claimants significantly altered the case's narrative.
- •The court considered the claimants' evolving evidence, procedural irregularities, and the burden of proof.
- •The court examined the origin and dissemination of the photographs, the claimants' reasonable expectation of privacy, and the defendants' potential liability for harassment.
Legal Principles
Misuse of private information requires a two-stage test: (1) a reasonable expectation of privacy, considering the Murray factors; and (2) a balancing exercise between Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights.
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22; Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2009] Ch 481
Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires a course of conduct (at least two occasions) that amounts to harassment and that the defendant knows or ought to know amounts to harassment. The conduct must be oppressive and unacceptable, crossing the boundary from unreasonable to objectionable.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, sections 1 and 7; Hayden v Dickinson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB); Scottow v Crown Prosecution Service [2021] 1 WLR 1828
Duress requires illegitimate pressure that coerces a party into a contract, leaving them with no practical choice. Undue influence involves the exploitation of a pre-existing relationship.
Outcomes
The claim for duress and undue influence was dismissed.
The court found insufficient evidence that Hussain withdrew his claim due to threats or coercion from the defendants. The court accepted Hussain's explanation that he withdrew the claim due to the COVID-19 pandemic and personal concerns.
The claim for misuse of private information partially succeeded.
The court found that Ms. Hussain had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the photographs and that their disclosure in the 'sergey' message constituted a misuse of private information. However, the court did not find that Rahman's initial disclosure to Hussain was a breach.
The claim for harassment was dismissed.
The court found insufficient evidence to establish a course of conduct amounting to harassment by any of the defendants. While some incidents were unpleasant, they lacked the necessary persistence, oppressiveness, and clear connection to the defendants to meet the legal threshold.