This case concerns the principle of open justice and the application of orthodox principles to an application by a litigant for an anonymity order, namely, the balancing exercise between an individual’s Article 8 and 6 rights of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Article 10 and 6 ECHR rights of the press and public.
Judges:
Lord Justice Haddon-Cave
Citations:
[2020] EWCA Civ 580
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8 10
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – D v The Information Commissioner UTAA 21-Dec-2018
Information Rights – Data Protection. The applicant appealed from refusal of his application for anonymity in his substantial appeal to the tribunal.
Held: The anonymity order was properly refused. . .
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 . .
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.
Information, Human Rights
Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.650809
