W v M (TOLATA Proceedings: Anonymity)

W v M (TOLATA Proceedings: Anonymity)

The application for anonymisation was refused because the evidence did not convincingly establish that publication would cause sufficient harm to the children or the witness to justify derogation from open justice. The balancing exercise, on the specific facts, did not displace the general rule of publicity. However, after settlement of the main action and agreement of the parties to confidentiality, anonymisation of the judgment was granted to protect the confidentiality of the settlement.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: W; Defendant/respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) / Interlocutory Application for Anonymisation Order; Main Action Settled Before Trial
Outcome
Application for anonymisation refused at first instance; after settlement, judgment anonymised to protect confidentiality.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Anonymity Orders, Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Reporting Restrictions, Children's Rights, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, Balancing Exercise Between Privacy and Publicity
Civil Procedure Family Law Human Rights Open Justice Anonymity Orders Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) Reporting Restrictions +3 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 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W

Claimant/applicant

M

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) / Interlocutory Application for Anonymisation Order; Main Action Settled Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings under TOLATA 1996 should be anonymised to protect the privacy of parties and children
  2. 2 Whether sufficient evidence exists to justify derogation from open justice
  3. 3 Whether the interests of children and a witness justify reporting restrictions

Ratio Decidendi

The application for anonymisation was refused because the evidence did not convincingly establish that publication would cause sufficient harm to the children or the witness to justify derogation from open justice. The balancing exercise, on the specific facts, did not displace the general rule of publicity. However, after settlement of the main action and agreement of the parties to confidentiality, anonymisation of the judgment was granted to protect the confidentiality of the settlement.

Court Disposition

Application for anonymisation refused at first instance; after settlement, judgment anonymised to protect confidentiality.

Orders

  • Application for anonymisation of proceedings refused (initially)
  • After settlement, order made for anonymisation of judgment