Case Summary and Outcome

The England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division) granted interim injunctive relief in favour of a businessman, prohibiting his former partner from publishing or threatening to publish his private photographs and other confidential information. The Court found that the businessman had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that his rights under Article 8 (right to private and family life) of European Convention of Human Rights outweighed his former partner’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of that same convention. The Court found that the balance struck heavily in the businessman’s favour at this stage and that his former partner could tell her life story without “blackmail style threats” and without disclosing his “private and confidential information”.

---

Facts

In mid-2022, HXZ, a businessman and widower with homes in Asia and the U.K. and commercial interests in the U.K. began a private romantic relationship with NMX, which his family was unaware of. In March 2024, after an argument, NMX demanded £30,000 from HXZ, threatening to expose the relationship to his family. He paid £5,000. Shortly afterward, she posted a photo of him in her bed on social media. Following a further payment of £10,000, she removed the post, claiming her account had been hacked.

On December 31, 2024, NMX showed HXZ an explicit video of him in her washroom and a naked photograph, both allegedly recorded without his consent. She demanded £1 million and threatened to release the material publicly and to his family. NMX repeated the “blackmail threat” telephonically on January 3, 2025. [para. 20]

On February 3, 2025, NMX sent an email to HXZ alleging he had knowingly transmitted a sexually transmitted virus to her (which she said was a crime), claimed they had been married in an Islamic ceremony and sought a divorce, and demanded “millions” in compensation for “her suffering and health complications”. [para. 20] Later that month, she sent further emails making similar claims and threats, copying individuals known to HXZ, including family members, and again threatened publication unless further payments were made. HXZ submitted that, in that same month, NMX also posted, on social media, photos of HXZ in her bed, accompanied by text accusing him of having an sexually transmitted disease and engaging prostitutes.

On February 27, HXZ’s lawyers took over communication with NMX, who continued making claims that HXZ had given her a sexually transmitted disease and had committed a crime. She also now claimed that HXZ’s family had threatened violence and that one of his legal representatives was stalking her.

On March 5, NMX emailed HXZ directly, despite the instructions to contact only his legal representatives. The message was copied to his contacts, legal counsel, and media organisations. In it, she lowered her demand to several hundred thousand pounds, imposed a short deadline, and threatened to expose private images. The email also included a forwarded message alleging HXZ had shared intimate photos of her and warning she would retaliate by distributing private images of him to others, including his family, if he failed to pay.

At various times, NMX threatened to launch legal proceedings against HXZ, but did not follow through.

On March 13, 2025, HXZ approached the High Court in London, UK, on an ex parté basis (a hearing where only one side participates, without notice to the other party). HXZ sought damages and an injunction on the grounds that NMX had “misused his confidential private information” and “protection from harassment”. [para. 6] He requested that the matter be heard in private and that the parties be anonymized.

Judge Ritchie handed down the order, granting the request for the injunction, that same day. He delivered his reasons for the order on March 21.

---

Decision Overview

Justice Ritchie of the England and Wales High Court delivered the judgment. The central issue for consideration was whether NMX’s conduct constituted a misuse of confidential private information justifying the granting of an ex parte interim injunction.

HXZ argued that NMX’s threats to expose his private information, including private photographs and false medical details amounted to harassment.

The Court accepted that an ex parte application was justified in this case “to prevent tipping off [NMX], who may then have published before any injunction could be obtained”. [para. 9] It also accepted that the parties’ names should be anonymized but that the case should be held in public as some information had already been disseminated and so as to protect “open justice principles”. [para. 10]

The Court assessed whether there was misuse of confidential private information by applying a two-stage test: whether HXZ had a reasonable expectation of privacy; and whether that was outweighed by the NMX’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In applying the first stage of the test, the Court referred to and reaffirmed key principles from earlier case law. In Murray v. Express Newspapers, that Court had held that a reasonable expectation of privacy is assessed by considering “what a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would feel”. [p. 32] ZXC v. Bloomberg LP had confirmed that there are certain types of information – including “the intimate details of personal relationships” – that “will normally, but not invariably, be regarded as giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy”. [para. 33] In PJS v. News Group, that Court had emphasized that entry of private information into the public domain does not automatically negate a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court also noted that CTB v. News Group Newspapers had explained that this was because “the modern law of privacy is not concerned solely with information or ‘secrets’: it is also concerned importantly with intrusion”. [para. 34] In BVC v. EWF , that court had held that the publication of another’s sexual or health-related information was restricted, despite prior online disclosure by the defendant, as such matters fall within the core of Article 8 of the ECHR which protects the right to private and family life. The Court also cited SOJ v. JAO, which stressed the need to balance Articles 8  and 10 of the ECHR.

The Court acknowledged that ZXC v. Bloomberg set out that the second stage of the test must consider whether “the reasonable expectation of privacy is outweighed by other interests which conflict with it [and] [o]ften the decisive factor at this stage is an assessment of the contribution which publication of the information would make to a debate of general interest” and that how well-known a claimant is and their prior conduct, the subject matter and accuracy of the material as well as how it was obtained and “the proportionality of the interference with the exercise of freedom of expression” should be considered. [para. 36] The Court noted that under section 12(3) of the U.K. Human Rights Act 1998, courts may only grant injunctive relief affecting freedom of expression where the claimant is “likely to establish” that publication should not be allowed – a high standard of proof. [p. 37]

As this was a preliminary and ex parte case, the Court said it could not consider whether NMX and HXZ had been married or whether either had a sexually transmitted disease. However, it held that “it is plain from the written communications” that NMX had made demands and threats (of legal action and publication of confidential, private information), and that HXZ had a legitimate expectation of privacy over photographs of him naked, taken without his consent, and any medical conditions he may have. The Court held that there was no public interest in the disclosure of these images or information and that “there is no general public interest in other people’s sex lives.” [para. 45] The Court characterized NMX’s actions as blackmail and stated that she could have exercised her right to “tell her own life story” as part of her freedom of expression without using blackmail against HXZ. [para. 41]

The Court held that NMX’s threats against HXZ were sufficient for it to find that HXZ had “good prospects for success” in his main claim for damages, and so the balance weighed in favor of protecting his rights at the preliminary stage. [para. 42] The Court also held that the balance of convenience favored maintaining HXZ’s privacy, and that damages – without an injunction – would be insufficient to protect HXZ because of the potential damage to his reputation.

Given the ex parte nature of the case and that NMX was not able to present her argument, the Court considered possible defences she could have raised. It held that her right to freedom of expression should not outweigh HXZ’s right to privacy, and that if blackmail is used “the Article 10 rights of the Defendant are either not engaged at all, or at the least, less assertable” and so the Human Rights Act standard of a claimant having to prove that they are “likely to establish” that publication should not occur “probably does not apply”. [para. 46] The Court described blackmail as a “gross misuse of the right to free speech” and its presence in a case would increase the weight given to the attempts to restrain that speech. [para. 46]

The Court examined whether NMX’s conduct constituted harassment and noted that “blackmail and other repeated threats to publish private and/or defamatory material about a person may also amount to harassment” and referred to AMP v. Persons Unknown, where “relief was granted both on grounds of privacy and harassment”. [p. 49]

The Court considered whether HXZ suffered any effects of harassment in the U.K. since he resides mainly in Asia. It distinguished the case from Shakil-ur-Rahman v. ARY Network where a harassment claim was rejected because the claimant did not suffer harassment in the U.K., as HXZ had experienced the effects of the harassment within the U.K. The Court referred to XLD v. KZL where relief was granted to a U.S.-domiciled U.S. citizen who visited the U.K. on different occasions. In that case, the defendant had demanded money for not disclosing to the claimant’s family that he used the “Sugar Daddy” dating website. The Court noted that HXZ resides mainly in Asia but has property and business interests in the U.K. and that the HXZ’s private photograph was taken in London, threats were made when he was present in London and that his U.K. lawyers were copied in emails.

In concluding that NMX had harassed HXZ, the Court described her conduct as “potentially criminal and oppressive” which was calculated to cause HXZ harm and “extort money from him”. [para. 52]

Accordingly, the Court granted an “urgent interim prohibitory injunction” to prevent the publication of HXZ’s photographs or confidential, private information and an anti-harassment injunction – which it described as being “necessary and just”. [para. 57]

---