BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> STU v UVW & Anor [2011] EWHC 3133 (QB) (30 November 2011)
Cite as: [2011] EWHC 3133 (QB)

[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 3133 (QB)
Case No: HQ11XO4407


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

B e f o r e :


- and -

(1) UVW (2) XYZ


Godwin Busuttil (instructed by Payne Hicks Beach) for the Claimant
Harvey Starte (instructed by Wilford Smith) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 24 November 2011



Crown Copyright ©

    Mr Justice Tugendhat :

  1. On 24 November 2011 I granted an injunction in terms that were substantially agreed between the parties. It prohibited the disclosure of information concerning the Claimant which was specified in confidential schedules to the order. There are ancillary orders to prevent further dissemination of the information, and to enable the Claimant to give notice of the order to any person whom the Defendants identify as persons to whom they have already disclosed information the subject of the order. There are other derogations from open justice, including an order for the protection of the hearing papers. I ordered that the hearing be in private.
  2. I was satisfied that, in the interests of justice, it was necessary to grant anonymity to the parties and to make the other orders derogating from open justice. Without such an order the purpose sought to be attained by these proceedings would be likely to be defeated. Although the facts of the case are very different from those in JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1645, [2011] EWCA Civ 42, the reason is similar to the reason that led the Court of Appeal to continue anonymity in that case. There has been some public reporting in the past. As a result, if the parties were not anonymised, or if further information were disclosed in open court or otherwise, there would be a real likelihood that information which is claimed to be private and confidential would be disclosed.
  3. There is no return date in the order. The reason for this is that the Claimant had given notice of intention to apply for this order, and the Defendants were represented, and were able to deal with this matter as if proceedings had been issued and an Application Notice issued on 3 days notice, as prescribed by CPR Part 23.7. The only reason why the claim form had not been issued was that a court order was required for the issue of it in anonymised form, and in the particular circumstances of this case the most convenient way of dealing with the matter was to ask for the anonymisation order at the same hearing as the other relief and orders. The Claimant's advisers had regard to the Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders.
  4. The parties are all individuals.
  5. The case will now proceed in accordance with the CPR.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII