A retired London solicitor has won a High Court injunction preventing a woman he met through an escort website from revealing certain details of his private life.
The lawyer, referred to as AVB, sought an order restraining the woman from disclosing any further information about his wife, children, or sexual relations with other women.
Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting in the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division), said AVB was entitled to an order restraining publication of that material, but he was not entitled to stop publication of any other information complaining of his conduct towards her.
Neither party, the judge ruled, was entitled to damages, while a claim of harassment against AVB was upheld.
AVB had asked for an injunction to restrain the misuse of private and confidential information following a 14-month relationship.
The solicitor, a former partner at a London firm, met the woman, referred to in court as TDD, in March 2012 after responding to an advertisement for her published by an escort agency. Both were divorced.
Tugendhat said TDD had asked AVB for help with her legal studies, with her legal career, and, when the need arose, legal advice and representation. He had encouraged her expectations at the start of their relationship.
He also introduced her to a relation who is a QC, and to one or two other friends of his.
The solicitor told her some information about his previous sexual affairs, including one affair with a woman at his place of work, and he told her some information about his Brazilian girlfriends and a lawsuit he was engaged in with a woman in Brazil.
TDD admitted she had behaved ‘unacceptably’ and did not dispute she had sent eight Facebook messages to AVB’s daughter. For his part, AVB denied he had acted unacceptably, although TDD stated he took ‘great pleasure in winding her up and calling her names’.
In his judgment, Tugendhat said it would ‘make no sense’ to find that TDD had acted oppressively towards AVB.
In her counter-claim of harassment against him, the judge said AVB’s ‘exploitative and manipulative behaviour’ towards her did amount to a course of conduct which was harassment.
He ruled AVB is entitled to an order restraining TDD from further disclosing any of the confidential or private information already disclosed by her which relates to AVB’s wife and his children, or to the sexual or financial information relating to individuals with whom he has had a sexual or a personal or professional relationship, but he is not entitled to an order restraining publication of any of the other information on which she based her complaints against himself about his conduct towards her.