Constructive total loss claim under a war risks policy on the vessel BRILLANTE VIRTUOSO which is being defended on the grounds that the vessel was ‘scuttled’ by her Owner. Disclosure of identity of witness: ‘ In considering an application for non-disclosure of a witness’ identity, the Court applies a two-stage test (see, for example, Kalma v African Minerals Limited [2018] EWHC 120 (QB)). These stages are: (1) The threshold test: the grant of anonymity must be necessary , based on a legitimate fear of danger; (2) If that threshold is met, the court will balance the witness’ interest in anonymity with the interests of the parties in a fair trial, together with the public interest in open justice.
As to the first stage of the test, the threshold of ‘necessity’ is ‘formidable’ (see the Kalma case, and the Yalland case). The applicant must show some direct link between the witness’ legitimate fear of danger, on the one hand, and the disclosure of the witness’ identity, on the other. If the extent of the witness’ fear, or the prospects of the danger eventuating, would not be ‘materially increased’ by the disclosure of the witness’ identity, then it cannot be said that anonymity is necessary, though of course some other protective measures may be (see Re Officer L). Accordingly, anonymity is unlikely to be necessary if the identity of the witness is already known to, or could easily be discovered by, those who threaten harm (see Cherney v Deripaska [2012] EWHC 1781 (Comm)
Justice Teare
[2018] EWHC 2929 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – XXX v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Nov-2020
Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test
XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.631337