When the boyfriend confronted her about it, the pair had a heated argument for several hours, after which he agreed to delete the photos of her diary and she deleted Mr Y’s telephone number from her iPhone and iPad.
But a few weeks later he went through her iPad and discovered she still had Mr Y’s number.
The boyfriend confronted her again, saying: ‘I want to expose you both for what you have done. I have got enough evidence to do that.’
After another row, CHS left her boyfriend’s house in the early hours of March 2, and subsequently brought legal action against him fearing that he had not actually deleted all the pictures he took of her diary entries.
Incredibly, neither her boyfriend nor her married lover knew she was bringing a High Court case seeking a ban on publishing the diary entries. It was held in private in Manchester.
Granting an interim injunction, Judge David Hodge QC said: ‘It is said that the potential damage which could be done, both to the claimant, as a public figure of trust, and to Mr Y, as a public figure who is married to someone else, is enormous.
‘The claimant believes that if the documents stolen from her were shared in the public domain, both she and Mr Y would be irreparably damaged, and there would be enormous financial repercussions for both of them. Mr Y is said to be unaware of the present situation.’
The judge added: ‘I am satisfied on the evidence presently before the court that the claimant’s [Human Right Act] Article 8 right to respect for her private life clearly weighs more heavily in the balance than the defendant’s desire to exercise any Article 10 freedom of expression in publishing that private life.
'That is because the reasons for publication are, on the evidence, motivated by malice.’
The judge said the hearing could go ahead without the boyfriend being present because CHS feared it would ‘tip him off’ and he would publish the diary entries before she could obtain a court order.
