CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB) (23 May 2011)

CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB) (23 May 2011)

The injunction should not be varied to remove the claimant's anonymity because the information is not so widely available as to render the injunction futile, and further publication would cause additional intrusion and distress. The application for specific disclosure is refused as unnecessary and disproportionate to the present issues.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1326 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: CTB; First Defendant: News Group Newspapers Limited; Second Defendant: Imogen Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application and Application for Specific Disclosure / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Applications by both defendants refused; injunction maintained; application for specific disclosure refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Anonymity Orders, Disclosure of Documents, Breach of Confidence, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Privacy Law Media Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Anonymity Orders Disclosure of Documents Breach of Confidence Article 8 ECHR +1 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CTB

Claimant

News Group Newspapers Limited

First Defendant

Imogen Thomas

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application and Application for Specific Disclosure / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to vary an anonymity injunction due to widespread internet publication of the claimant's identity
  2. 2 Whether to order specific disclosure of documents from the first defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction should not be varied to remove the claimant's anonymity because the information is not so widely available as to render the injunction futile, and further publication would cause additional intrusion and distress. The application for specific disclosure is refused as unnecessary and disproportionate to the present issues.

Court Disposition

Applications by both defendants refused; injunction maintained; application for specific disclosure refused.

Orders

  • The anonymity injunction remains in force and is not varied.
  • No order for specific disclosure against the first defendant.