Blacker (The Lord Harley) v The Law Society

Factual and Procedural Background

The judgment concerns two applications in proceedings between the Plaintiff and the Defendant: one by the Plaintiff seeking injunctive relief to restrain publication of certain material, and the other by the Defendant seeking to strike out the Plaintiff's claim or alternatively summary judgment on its defence. The Plaintiff, a solicitor using various titles and associated with a registered charity and a company providing in-house legal services, challenges the Defendant's decision to disclose information pursuant to a Freedom of Information request submitted by a third party identified only by initials. The Defendant is the representative body for solicitors in England and Wales, with regulatory functions exercised independently by an associated regulatory authority.

The dispute arose after the regulatory authority received a Freedom of Information request relating to the Plaintiff, the charity, and the company. Following adjudication, six files ("Closed Files") were ordered to be disclosed in redacted form, while three additional files relating to ongoing complaints were not subject to disclosure. The Plaintiff sought to restrain the release of the six Closed Files and demanded delivery of all nine files. The Defendant opposed, seeking to strike out the claim or obtain summary judgment. The proceedings were issued in the High Court and concern injunctive relief and damages claimed under the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff has a serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged improper disclosure of information by the Defendant pursuant to a Freedom of Information request.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief restraining publication or requiring delivery up of the disputed files.
3. Whether the Plaintiff's claim discloses reasonable grounds or should be struck out or disposed of by summary judgment.
4. Whether the Plaintiff's reliance on the Human Rights Act, specifically Articles 6 and 8, is engaged by the Defendant's conduct.
5. The applicability and effect of the Defendant's voluntary Freedom of Information Code of Practice in the absence of statutory obligation.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Defendant published personal and private information from the Plaintiff’s records without his knowledge or consent, in breach of the Data Protection Act.
• The Defendant is not bound by the Freedom of Information Act but voluntarily adopts a code of practice, which it breached by disclosing personal information.
• The Plaintiff was denied a fair process as he was not consulted or given an opportunity to make representations before publication.
• The Defendant acted in bad faith and belligerently, including failing to comply with court orders and continuing publication despite injunctions.
• The Plaintiff claims damages limited to £50,000 for the alleged breaches.
• The Defendant’s conduct breached rights under Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Human Rights Act.

Defendant's Arguments

• The claim should be struck out as it discloses no reasonable grounds, is vague, embarrassing, and an abuse of process.
• Neither Article 6 nor Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is engaged by the claim.
• The Plaintiff has no proprietary or legal right to the disputed files, which are the property of the regulatory authority and created in the exercise of its regulatory function.
• The Defendant is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act but follows a voluntary Code of Practice, which includes exceptions for regulatory information.
• The Defendant has taken steps to properly redact documents and has withdrawn the improperly redacted schedule previously published.
• The Plaintiff was given an opportunity to make representations after the adjudicator’s decision, and the claim lacks merit.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the principles from American Cyanamid concerning interim injunctions, which require a serious issue to be tried and a favorable balance of convenience. It found the Plaintiff’s claim failed the first stage as there was no serious issue to be tried. The information proposed for disclosure did not contain personal data warranting protection; the only unredacted information was publicly available. The Plaintiff’s reliance on the Human Rights Act was rejected because no civil or criminal proceedings were involved to engage Article 6, and no interference with private life under Article 8 was established.

The court noted that the Defendant’s voluntary adoption of a Freedom of Information Code of Practice, despite not being subject to the statutory Act, did not give rise to a cause of action for damages. The Plaintiff had no proprietary rights in the regulatory files, which were the property of the regulatory authority. The court also criticized the Plaintiff's assertions of bad faith and breach of injunctions as unsupported and baseless.

The court further held that the Plaintiff’s claim was vague and embarrassing, and the claim form disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. Even if reasonable grounds existed, summary judgment would be appropriate as the Plaintiff had no real prospect of success. The court also noted the absence of any undertaking in damages by the Plaintiff, which would normally be fatal to an injunction application.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff's application for interim injunctive relief and granted the Defendant's application to strike out the claim under CPR Part 3.4(2)(a). Alternatively, the court would have granted summary judgment under CPR Part 24.2(a)(i) in favor of the Defendant.

The direct consequence is that the Plaintiff’s claim is disposed of without trial, and the Defendant is entitled to proceed with disclosure of the six Closed Files subject to proper redactions as ordered by the adjudicator. The Plaintiff has no entitlement to delivery up of any of the regulatory files. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.