CMS client Bloomberg has lost a High Court privacy case against an international businessman, known in court only as 'ZXC', and now faces an injunction as well as a claim for damages.

Bloomberg was represented by a CMS team led by disputes partner Dan Tench, while former Dechert litigation head and current Byrne and Partners boss, David Byrne, successfully acted for ZXC.

In court, Matrix Chambers represented both sides, with silks Tim Owen QC and Gavin Millar QC acting opposite one another; Owen for the claimant ZXC and Millar for the defendant Bloomberg. Sara Mansoori – also of Matrix – assisted Owen, while One Brick Court junior Clara Hamer acted alongside Millar.

At issue was the misuse of private information. The case stems from an article Bloomberg published in 2016 which, the court heard, listed details of possible corruption and fraud committed by ZXC as per a letter written by a UK-based law enforcement investigation body to a government agency, which was leaked to Bloomberg.

The hearing first came to the High Court in November, with judgment handed down last week.

In reaching his decision, Mr Justice Nicklin invoked privacy principles established in last year's High Court battle between Sir Cliff Richard and the BBC, and agreed with Owen and Byrne that "the claimant does have a reasonable expectation of privacy".

The judge said that "by far the weightiest factor" was "the circumstances in which and the purposes for which the information came into the hands of the publisher".

In particular, the judge concluded that "public disclosure of this sort of information from an ongoing police investigation harms the public interest", as it "risks jeopardising the investigation by alerting potential suspects".

He said: "There was a very clear public interest that the contents of the [information] should not be published and that the confidentiality of [the enforcement body's] investigations should be maintained."

Due to the highly confidential nature of the information that Bloomberg published – which disclosed the views of the enforcement body investigating the claimant's alleged criminality – the judge granted the claimant an injunction and also awarded him damages of £25,000.

The terms of the injunction are yet to be reached.