Hourani v Thomson & Ors [2017] EWHC 173 (QB) (06 February 2017)

Hourani v Thomson & Ors [2017] EWHC 173 (QB) (06 February 2017)

The court held that while the identities of the client(s) behind the campaign had some relevance, the source protection rights under s 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 ECHR were engaged. The claimant failed to establish that disclosure was 'really needed' for a fair trial or to resolve the pleaded issues. The information sought was not necessary to determine the issues between the parties, nor to enable third party disclosure or vindication of rights at this stage. Accordingly, the application for disclosure and further information was refused.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 173
Parties
Claimant: Issam Salah Hourani; Defendant: Alistair Thomson; Defendant: Bryan McCarthy; Defendant: Allison Blair; Defendant: Psybersolutions LLC; Defendant: John Michael Waller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2017
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application (preliminary Issue at Trial)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Source Protection, Disclosure of Documents, Harassment, Libel, Freedom of Expression, Contempt of Court, Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Source Protection Disclosure of Documents Harassment Libel Freedom of Expression +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Issam Salah Hourani

Claimant

Alistair Thomson

Defendant

Bryan McCarthy

Defendant

Allison Blair

Defendant

Psybersolutions LLC

Defendant

John Michael Waller

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application (preliminary Issue at Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to disclosure of the identities of the defendants' client(s) behind the campaign for the purposes of inspection of documents and provision of further information.
  2. 2 Whether source protection rights under s 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 ECHR are engaged and, if so, whether disclosure is necessary and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the identities of the client(s) behind the campaign had some relevance, the source protection rights under s 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 ECHR were engaged. The claimant failed to establish that disclosure was 'really needed' for a fair trial or to resolve the pleaded issues. The information sought was not necessary to determine the issues between the parties, nor to enable third party disclosure or vindication of rights at this stage. Accordingly, the application for disclosure and further information was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for inspection of documents and provision of further information regarding the identity of the client(s) is refused.
  • The issue of client identification for the purpose of vindicating rights may be revisited after trial if appropriate.