CWD v Nevitt & Ors [2020] EWHC 1289 (QB) (21 May 2020)

CWD v Nevitt & Ors [2020] EWHC 1289 (QB) (21 May 2020)

The court refused the claimant's application for a reporting restriction order because, balancing the competing Convention rights and applying the test in section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, the claimant had not shown it was more likely than not that he would succeed at trial in obtaining a final order restraining publication of his identity. The court also found that the anonymity of the first and second defendants was no longer necessary as they had waived it, and the third defendant's anonymity was also lifted as the rationale for it had fallen away.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1289
Parties
Claimant: CWD; First Defendant: Verity Nevitt; Second Defendant: Lucy Nevitt; Third Defendant: Michael Nevitt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation, Privacy, Harassment) / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Anonymity and Reporting Restrictions
Outcome
Claimant's application for a reporting restriction order refused; defendants' anonymity lifted; claimant remains anonymised under existing order.
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998, CPR 16.2, CPR 39.2
Defamation Privacy Harassment Media Law Civil Procedure Anonymity Orders Reporting Restrictions Open Justice +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CWD

Claimant

Verity Nevitt

First Defendant

Lucy Nevitt

Second Defendant

Michael Nevitt

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation, Privacy, Harassment) / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Anonymity and Reporting Restrictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the anonymity of the defendants should be lifted
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should remain anonymised
  3. 3 Whether a reporting restriction order should be granted to prohibit publication of the claimant's identity

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the claimant's application for a reporting restriction order because, balancing the competing Convention rights and applying the test in section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, the claimant had not shown it was more likely than not that he would succeed at trial in obtaining a final order restraining publication of his identity. The court also found that the anonymity of the first and second defendants was no longer necessary as they had waived it, and the third defendant's anonymity was also lifted as the rationale for it had fallen away.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for a reporting restriction order refused; defendants' anonymity lifted; claimant remains anonymised under existing order.

Orders

  • Anonymity of first and second defendants lifted; they may be identified by name.
  • Anonymity of third defendant lifted.