Confidentiality – Don't Give In to Threats

18th June 2018 By Arman Khosravi

If you are facing menacing demands for money, you should take legal advice straight away. In a recent case, the High Court came to the aid of a wealthy married businessman who claimed to have been subjected to blackmail following a brief affair with a work contact.

After meeting the woman in a work context, the businessman went for a drink with her. That broke her employer’s rules in respect of customer relations and she was suspended from her job. The businessman supported her through the disciplinary process and their relationship eventually became sexual.

The woman ultimately resigned and took the view that the man was in part to blame for her losing her job. After her demands for financial assistance became increasingly persistent, he received a call from someone claiming to be a journalist intent on exposing his affair, but who he suspected was connected to the woman. Believing the threat of exposure to be credible, he ultimately paid the woman a very substantial sum in return for her signing a strict confidentiality agreement.

However, according to the businessman, matters did not end there. He said that he had been contacted several times by a man claiming to be from a media agency who demanded over £100,000 in return for not publishing the story. The man had denied that he was engaged in extortion or blackmail and said that he was offering to do the businessman a favour in keeping his affair away from the public gaze.

Eventually, the businessman decided to take legal action and a hearing ensued behind closed doors. The businessman’s anonymity was strictly protected. The Court found that a good arguable case had been made out that he had been subjected to blackmail and that the woman and the man who had contacted him were acting in league.

The information that the man had threatened to publicly expose related to a sexual relationship that was by its nature private and the businessman also had a strong case that he had suffered a course of conduct that amounted to harassment. The Court issued a stringent interim injunction that forbade both the woman and the man from persisting in such conduct. Breach of the injunction would be a contempt of court, potentially punishable by imprisonment.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Another Sad Tale of a Farmer's Disinherited Children – High Court Ruling

24th November, 2023 By

The tale of a devoted son labouring for years on a family farm only to be cut out of his father's will is so often told as to be almost a cliché. However, as a High Court ruling showed, such stories are often reflected in the sad and recurring reality of agricultural inheritance disputes. When he died, a father was the beneficial owner of a 20 per cent stake in his family farm. He also held a 25 per cent share of a company that ran a market gardening business...

Family Judge Treads the Blurred Boundary Between Life and Death

21st November, 2023 By

The ability of modern medical technology to keep patients' hearts beating and their lungs ventilating has led to a blurring of the boundary between life and death. As a High Court ruling showed, it sometimes falls to family judges to make the desperately hard decision as to when that line has been crossed. The case concerned a young man who fell to the ground after being assaulted in a pub garden, sustaining a catastrophic brain injury. He was admitted to hospital in a deep coma and, following weeks of observation...

False Claim to Be a Cash Buyer Ruled Fraudulent in Ground-Breaking Case

16th November, 2023 By

In coming to the aid of a frail and elderly householder, the High Court has ruled in a landmark case that she was on the receiving end of a fraudulent misrepresentation when a would-be purchaser of her home was falsely described to her as a cash buyer. A copy of a contract before the Court indicated that the woman, aged in her 80s, had signed a contract agreeing to the sale of her home for £840,000. Following a purported exchange of contracts, the purchaser, an investment company, launched proceedings against...

Sometimes Parental Love is Not Enough – Court Sanctions Boy's Adoption

13th November, 2023 By

Parents may be worthy of praise and deeply love their children, but it sadly does not always follow that they are able to provide them with a stable home. The High Court made that point in sanctioning a little boy's placement for adoption. Due to concerns that he was not receiving a good enough standard of parenting, a local authority placed him in temporary foster care and sought care and placement orders. His parents, although separated, staunchly resisted plans for his adoption, arguing that his mother was able to look...