The police were conducting a major investigation into suspected awards of state honours in return for cash and associated events. The AG had obtained an order restraining the defendant and other media from reporting allegations that one person was said to have accused another of asking her to lie for him. It was said that … Continue reading HM Attorney General v British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 12 Mar 2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his opponent. The judge had refused to excise the details … Continue reading Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd: CA 3 Apr 2007
When looking at whether to lift a stay on an action imposed before the coming into effect of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court should look at each of the items listed in the rule, and should then stand back and look at the overall needs of justice. Judges: Lord Justice Clarke Lord Phillips Of … Continue reading Flaxman-Binns v Lincolnshire County Council: CA 5 Apr 2004
The word ‘private’ in rule 39.2 means the same as ‘secret’. Lord Justice Mance said: ‘It may be equated with the old ‘in camera’ procedure, rather than the old ‘in chambers’ procedure.’ Privacy and confidentiality are features long assumed to be implicit in parties’ choice to arbitrate in England. Judges: Mance VC, Carnwath, Mance LJJ … Continue reading Department of Economic Policy and Development of City of Moscow and Another v Bankers Trust Company and Another: CA 25 Mar 2004
The applicant had been a health care worker, but was no longer working. He had come to be HIV positive, and an order was sought protecting his identity from disclosure in the press. He had evidence that the NHS guidelines on notification of patients of having been treated. He declined to provide details of his … Continue reading H (A Healthcare Worker) v Associated Newspapers Limited: CA 27 Feb 2002
The claimants sought an order that the defendants, an internet company in Florida, should disclose the IP address of a registered user of the site with a view to identifying the user and pursuing an action against him or her. Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘Hearings in private under CPR 39.2 (3) and orders under CPR … Continue reading G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc: QBD 2 Dec 2009
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 proceedings for judicial review of the Council’s housing allocation policy, … Continue reading XXX v Camden London Borough Council: CA 11 Nov 2020
Investigation of claimant was properly disclosed The claimant requested the removal of material naming him from the defendant’s website. Criminal investigations into a company with which he was associated were begun, but then concluded. In the interim, the article was published. The hearing had been in private and the claimant anonymised. Held: The weight to … Continue reading ZXC v Bloomberg Lp: QBD 23 Feb 2017
Anonymity in Family matters at CA isexceptional In ancillary relief proceedings at first instance, the court had provided for anonymity of various parties. On appeal, W, with the consent of H now sought a further freestanding order to similar effect. Held: The application was allowed. Though at the Court of Appeal the starting point was … Continue reading XW v XH: CA 2 Apr 2019
Defamation/privacy claims against doctors failed The claimant, seeking damages for alleged defamation, now asked for the case to be anonymised. Held: The conditions for anonymisation were not met. The anonymity would be retained temporarily until any time for appeal had passed. As to the defamation allegation (contained in an email: ‘in order to satisfy the … Continue reading ZC v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 26 Jul 2019
Anonymity Not Necessary under CPR 3.92. Judgment on the Claimant’s application for an order under CPR 39.2(4) that her name be anonymised in these proceedings by the use of a cipher and that restrictions should be imposed on the reporting of her identity. She said that publication of her name would have adverse psychological factors. … Continue reading Imam, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Croydon (Anonymity request): Admn 26 Mar 2021
(Jan 2013) The court was asked whether an order for anonymity made in the course of proceedings for judicial review should be discharged upon the application of media and other interested parties. Various newspapers had applied for the order to be . .
The court system has acknowledged that the movement toward wider and wider publication of case law (of which we form part) has potential conflicts with privacy in general, and GDPR and Human Rights in particular. There have therefore been developed much more explicit systems for applying to court for ‘anonymity orders’ – an order that … Continue reading Anonymity Orders
We are a law reporting service. We index and publish case law for use by professional lawyers, law students or academics, or by litigants. We help them identify principles of law, and where those principles can be found in case law. Law reporting is an age old and essential part of all legal systems. Justice … Continue reading GDPR – Request to be ‘Forgotten’
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt. Held: The House equated the contempt to a breach of an injunction … Continue reading Scott v Scott: HL 5 May 1913
