CWD v Nevitt & Ors

CWD v Nevitt & Ors

The anonymity order protecting the first and second defendants was lifted as they expressly waived their statutory right to anonymity and no longer required protection. The third defendant's anonymity was also lifted as the rationale for his protection had fallen away. The claimant's application for a reporting restriction order was refused because, balancing the competing Convention rights and applying s.12(3) HRA, it was not more likely than not that the claimant would succeed at trial in obtaining a final order restraining publication of his identity, and the order was not strictly necessary. The r.16 anonymity order for the claimant remains in place.

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, Misuse of Private Information, Harassment / Interlocutory Applications (anonymity and Reporting Restriction Orders)
Outcome
First and second defendants' anonymity lifted; third defendant's anonymity lifted; claimant's anonymity maintained under r.16 order; reporting restriction order refused.
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Human Rights, Sexual Offences (amendment) Act 1992, Contempt of Court Act 1981, Human Rights Act 1998, Civil Procedure Rules
Defamation Privacy Law Harassment Civil Procedure Anonymity Orders Reporting Restrictions Open Justice Human Rights +4 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 25 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, Misuse of Private Information, Harassment / Interlocutory Applications (anonymity and Reporting Restriction Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the anonymity order protecting the defendants should be lifted
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be granted a reporting restriction order to protect his anonymity
  3. 3 Whether continued anonymisation of the third defendant is necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The anonymity order protecting the first and second defendants was lifted as they expressly waived their statutory right to anonymity and no longer required protection. The third defendant's anonymity was also lifted as the rationale for his protection had fallen away. The claimant's application for a reporting restriction order was refused because, balancing the competing Convention rights and applying s.12(3) HRA, it was not more likely than not that the claimant would succeed at trial in obtaining a final order restraining publication of his identity, and the order was not strictly necessary. The r.16 anonymity order for the claimant remains in place.

Court Disposition

First and second defendants' anonymity lifted; third defendant's anonymity lifted; claimant's anonymity maintained under r.16 order; reporting restriction order refused.

Orders

  • Paragraph 2(d) of the 15 March 2019 order is amended to lift anonymity of the first and second defendants, who may be identified by name.
  • The third defendant's anonymity is lifted and he may be identified by name.