![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Hemsworth v Department for Work And Pensions No 2 (rev 1) [2018] EWHC 2282 (QB) (14 September 2018) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2018/2282.html Cite as: [2018] Info TLR 181, [2019] EMLR 3, [2018] EWHC 2282 (QB) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO PD53 6.1
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Ross William Hemsworth (formerly "SWS") |
Applicant |
|
- and – |
||
Department for Work and Pensions |
Respondent |
____________________
Aidan Eardley (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE WARBY:
The Background
"… I am not persuaded that the derogation from justice which anonymisation of the draft SIOC would involve is a measure that is either necessary to do justice, or proportionate to that or any other legitimate aim pursued by the applicant. A SIOC which names the claimant and explains the facts without going into detail is one that is fair and proportionate."
I went on to explain (at [54]) that I would "see no difficulty with" a SIOC that contained the same information about the claim and its settlement as was set out in my judgment, if that SIOC also contained the applicant's name.
The issue
Principles
Evidence
(1) Paragraphs 1 to 19 of the statement are headed "Background" and contain details of the applicant's health, employment, and relationship history, some of it historic and some more up to date. There is a considerable overlap with the evidence that was previously adduced. It is not apparent, or at least not obvious, why this background could not all have been adduced in evidence before. But there is one new item in the exhibit that should be mentioned. This is a letter from the applicant's GP (the GP Letter), dated 11 October 2017, referring to health events some months beforehand, and expressing a view about the prospects for the future.
(2) Paragraphs 20 to 28 of the statement are headed "Reasons for seeking anonymity". The final paragraph of the statement expresses fear for "the consequences if [the First Judgment] ends with much of the information I have sought to keep private entering the public domain in any event."
(3) I think it is fair to say that Mr Hemsworth expresses, in essence, six concerns: (i) that identification as a claimant for DLA risks exposing the claimant to speculation about the nature of the disability in question, and to hold derogatory opinions about him on the basis of his disability (real or assumed); (ii) that reference in the First Judgment to the DWP embarking on an investigation of the applicant's DLA claim may lead some to believe that the applicant is a benefit cheat, on the basis that there is "no smoke without fire"; (iii) reference to deterioration in Mr Hemsworth's relationship with his employer following the wrongful disclosure of health information may lead people to conclude that his condition is one that carries a significant stigma; (iv) that his ex-partner may seek to use the First Judgment against him in some way; (v) that online publication of or about the First Judgment may prejudice him; (vi) that his health may suffer if his name is published and any of these adverse consequences arise.
(4) The applicant makes clear that he has limited resources, financial and otherwise, with which to fight back if these concerns prove justified. He adds that "this is also an issue which could affect those who are known to be close to me, such as my partner and my children."
Submissions
Discussion
Conclusions
Effect
Postscript, 7 December 2018
No application having been made to the Court of Appeal, the anonymity order has now lapsed, and this version of the original judgment, including the applicant's name, is made public.