ABC v Avtar Lit [2013] EWHC 3020 (QB) (10 October 2013)

ABC v Avtar Lit [2013] EWHC 3020 (QB) (10 October 2013)

The Defendant failed to provide evidence or address the procedural and substantive requirements for a non-disclosure order as set out in the Practice Guidance and relevant case law. The prior anonymity order did not justify or substitute for a non-disclosure order, and the application was fundamentally flawed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3020
Parties
Claimant: ABC; Defendant: Avtar Lit
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (assault, Damages) / Application to Continue Non Disclosure Order After Default Judgment
Outcome
Defendant's application for a non-disclosure order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure Orders, Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Default Judgment, Without Notice Applications
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Human Rights Non Disclosure Orders Anonymity Orders Open Justice Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABC

Claimant

Avtar Lit

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (assault, Damages) / Application to Continue Non Disclosure Order After Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is entitled to a non-disclosure order prohibiting publication of the default judgment and his identity
  2. 2 Whether the application for a non-disclosure order complied with procedural requirements and legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to provide evidence or address the procedural and substantive requirements for a non-disclosure order as set out in the Practice Guidance and relevant case law. The prior anonymity order did not justify or substitute for a non-disclosure order, and the application was fundamentally flawed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for a non-disclosure order dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to continue non-disclosure order refused; order lapsed.