Graiseley Properties Ltd & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors (Rev 1)

Graiseley Properties Ltd & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc & Ors (Rev 1)

The application for anonymity fails because the applicants did not provide clear and cogent evidence that anonymity is strictly necessary for the proper administration of justice. The principle of open justice applies fully to interlocutory hearings, and the order sought would be disproportionate, impede fair case preparation, and is not justified by the risk of reputational harm or potential prejudice to ongoing investigations. There is a strong public interest in transparency, especially given the public nature of the LIBOR manipulation allegations.

Parties
Claimants: Graiseley Properties Limited and Others; Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC; Applicants: Various Employees and Ex Employees of Barclays Bank PLC; Interveners: Telegraph Media Group Limited and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Anonymity Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Anonymity Orders, Disclosure, Freedom of Expression, Reputational Harm
Civil Procedure Media Law Banking Law Open Justice Anonymity Orders Disclosure Freedom of Expression Reputational Harm

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graiseley Properties Limited and Others

Claimants

Barclays Bank PLC

Defendant

Various Employees and Ex Employees of Barclays Bank PLC

Applicants

Telegraph Media Group Limited and Others

Interveners

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Anonymity Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an anonymity order to protect the identities of Barclays employees and ex-employees in interlocutory proceedings involving allegations of LIBOR manipulation.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for anonymity fails because the applicants did not provide clear and cogent evidence that anonymity is strictly necessary for the proper administration of justice. The principle of open justice applies fully to interlocutory hearings, and the order sought would be disproportionate, impede fair case preparation, and is not justified by the risk of reputational harm or potential prejudice to ongoing investigations. There is a strong public interest in transparency, especially given the public nature of the LIBOR manipulation allegations.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an anonymity order is dismissed.