Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz have begun an appeal against their High Court defeat by brother-in-law, canned–fruit millionaire, Vivian Imerman, concerning confidential information that was taken from a shared computer system.
Over three days, Lord Neuberger MR, Moses and Munby LJJ will consider the brothers’ appeal against a summary judgment that Eady J made in favour of Imerman in August 2009.
Eady J found that Robert Tchenguiz wrongly took private and confidential information belonging to Imerman and that neither the brothers nor their three codefendants “had any lawful right to retain or use the same”.
The dispute began in March 2009, when Imerman was evicted from his office in Leconfield House, London W1, which he shared with Robert, following the breakdown of his marriage to the brothers’ sister, Lisa.
Imerman filed an application against Robert, Vincent and three other men, claiming that they had taken or had been involved in taking information that belonged to him from the premises.
Robert, who has admitted taking the information, said that he did so because he believed that Imerman would attempt to hide assets and financial information from Lisa in their matrimonial proceedings and wanted to protect her interests.
Eady J ordered the five defendants to return the information to Imerman, but left it to the Family Division to decide whether Lisa could use it.
In December 2009, a judge in the Family Division ruled that Lisa could use seven lever-arch files of documents provided by her brothers in order to justify what had happened and her proposed use of the information in her divorce. Imerman is appealing that decision.
Yesterday, Desmond Browne QC, for the brothers, told the court that Imerman’s right to confidentiality had to be weighed against the right of his wife to a fair trial.
He said: “The profession needs to know what is legitimate in respect of the taking of information by a spouse, either a divorcing spouse or when on the verge of proceedings [and it was not wrong to take information] for the limited use of ancillary proceedings”.
Lawyers for Imerman will argue that the theft of the documents was an invasion of his right to respect for his private life, a breach of confidence and involved criminal offences.
The case continues.
