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 5.4C (4) are derogations from the principle of open justice. They must be ordered only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, with a view to protecting the rights which claimants (and others) are entitled to have protected by such means. When such orders are made, they must be limited in scope to what is required in the particular circumstances of the case.’
Judges:
Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 3148 (QB), [2010] EMLR 14
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 39.2(3) 5.4C(4)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – TSE and ELP v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 23-May-2011
The claimants had obtained an injunction preventing publication of details of their private lives and against being publicly named. The newspaper had not attempted to raise any public interest defence. Various publications had taken place to breach . .
Cited – ABC Ltd v Y ChD 6-Dec-2010
There had been proceedings as to the misuse of confidential information. X, a non-party, now sought disclosure of papers used in that case. The case had been settled by means of a Tomlin Schedule, and that, subject to further order, non-parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.381770
