The case of the Tchenguiz brothers hit the headlines. Coming from a close family, they had set out to help their sister Lisa, who was divorcing the former owner of Del Monte foods, one Vivien Imerman. The Tchenguiz brothers were concerned that Mr Imerman was withholding vital financial information from Lisa within their divorce. Mr Imerman had apparently claimed that he had no money so that his wife Lisa would get nothing in the forthcoming divorce. Lisa's brothers did not believe this and with the help of two I.T. staff, downloaded vast amounts of information about Mr Imerman's personal finances - he says 2.5 million pages, and even the Tchenguiz brothers admit they took 250,000 pages.
Mr Imerman got the matter in front of a High Court Judge, who ordered the return to Mr Imerman of his material, and further ordered that it should not be disclosed to anyone else. The Tchenguiz brothers appealed. One brother, Robert, claimed that he had helped Mr Imerman to make his personal fortune, which he estimated at around £350million. The Tchenguiz brothers' appeal, is being heard at the moment. Mr Imerman argues that he has a right to respect for his private life and that there were breaches of the data protection regulations. He argues that the Tchenguiz brothers' conduct amounts to vigilantism and that the divorce courts provide an adequate remedy for non disclosure of evidence. Naturally, the Tchenguiz brothers argue the opposite. They said that it isn't wrong to take financial information "for the limited use of ancillary proceedings", that is to say cases involving finances, linked to divorce. The brothers say that they have a public interest defence on the grounds that the documents were needed to expose wrong-doing or iniquity in the form of concealment of financial information.
The writer is actually on the brothers' side here. Courts can't function unless everyone is completely honest. Clients frequently complain to us that they "know" that their other half is concealing something, but they can't prove it. Here, Lisa Tchenguiz has been presented with an opportunity to prove to the court exactly what Mr Imerman is worth. Surely, if we say that everyone has a blanket right to withhold all personal information, we encourage deceit and lies and perhaps, the best results only for the dishonest?
Let us know what you think.
