ABK V KDT AND ANOTHER  EWHC 1192 QB
Child abuse website – Protection from Harassment and Imagery
This was an application for an injunction. An order had already been granted to protect the Claimant's right to confidentiality and privacy in respect of certain personal photographs and information and, secondly to protect her from harassment in the form of communications addressed by the Defendants to herself and her employers to which she did not consent, and attempts by the Second Defendant to meet her, again without her consent. The Claimant was a married woman living with her husband. She had an affair with the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant was at the same time in a relationship with the First Defendant. The Claimant wanted to bring the affair to an end and to remain with her husband. The Second Defendant wished to continue the affair, and attempted to persuade the Claimant not to end it. The First Defendant was aggrieved when she discovered the affair. The information sought to be protected included three photographs of a personal nature taken by the Claimant of herself and sent by her to the Second Defendant during the course of their relationship, together with personal text messages. These were all of a sexual nature, but could not be described as pornographic. Photographs and text messages of the Claimant came into the control of the First Defendant in circumstances which neither Defendant had been willing to disclose. In the absence of further information the court at any trial would be likely to infer that the Second Defendant disclosed the photos and information to the First Defendant. The First Defendant sent to the Claimant's husband, to two of her friends, and to a friend of her husband, an email to which the three photographs were attached. The First Defendant included in the email a threat to inflict "enough pain and humiliation matching my own during your love affair". The Claimant said that the Second Defendant was on occasions violent and threatening to her, particularly while she was attempting to bring an end to the relationship.
Mr Justice Tugendhat said that he was satisfied that at any trial the Claimant would be more likely than not to establish that the photographs and the other private information the subject of the claim ought not to be disclosed to anyone, and that the conduct of the Defendants amounted to harassment. Accordingly the Claimant was entitled to a further order substantially in the terms of the earlier order.