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 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 found that the existing anonymity order (r.16 order) was sufficient and that a further reporting restriction would be a disproportionate derogation from open justice, especially in a defamation context where the main purpose was to protect reputation rather than privacy. The anonymity of the defendants was lifted as it was no longer necessary,...

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1289 (QB)
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 (anonymity and Reporting Restriction Orders)
Outcome
Claimant's application for a reporting restriction order refused; defendants' anonymity lifted; claimant remains anonymised in proceedings.
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Reporting Restriction Orders, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998, Bonnard V Perryman Rule, Misuse of Private Information, Harassment
Defamation Privacy Law Media Law Civil Procedure Anonymity Orders Reporting Restriction Orders Open Justice Article 8 ECHR +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 6 Authorities cited 27 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 (anonymity and Reporting Restriction Orders)

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 in connection with the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the claimant's application for a reporting restriction order because, balancing the competing Convention rights and applying 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 found that the existing anonymity order (r.16 order) was sufficient and that a further reporting restriction would be a disproportionate derogation from open justice, especially in a defamation context where the main purpose was to protect reputation rather than privacy. The anonymity of the defendants was lifted as it was no longer necessary,...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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