Lupu & Ors v Rakoff & Ors [2019] EWHC 2525 (QB) (30 September 2019)

Lupu & Ors v Rakoff & Ors [2019] EWHC 2525 (QB) (30 September 2019)

The claimants failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that anonymity was strictly necessary or that expedition was justified. The principle of open justice requires parties' names to be public unless exceptional circumstances are proven. The risk of unauthorised disclosure of footage was speculative and insufficient to warrant expedition.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2525 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Andreea Lupu; Claimant: Caroline Underwood; Claimant: Rosie Jayne James; Claimant: Anca-Claudia Bordas; Claimant: Eleena-Florentina Cristea; Claimant: Denisa Suciu; Claimant: Itohan Omozogie; Claimant: Natalya Adrianne Bex; Claimant: Hayley Wheeler; Claimant: Spearmint Rhino Companies (Europe) Limited; Claimant: Sonfield Developments Limited; Defendant: Dr Sasha Rakoff; Defendant: Not Buying It Limited; Defendant: Philip Charles Rashbrook; Defendant: Jeffrey Mitchell Hill
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (anonymity and Expedition)
Outcome
Applications for anonymity and expedition refused.
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection, Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, Expedited Trials
Media and Communications Law Privacy Law Civil Procedure Misuse of Private Information Data Protection Anonymity Orders Open Justice Expedited Trials

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 39 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andreea Lupu

Claimant

Caroline Underwood

Claimant

Rosie Jayne James

Claimant

Anca-Claudia Bordas

Claimant

Eleena-Florentina Cristea

Claimant

Denisa Suciu

Claimant

Itohan Omozogie

Claimant

Natalya Adrianne Bex

Claimant

Hayley Wheeler

Claimant

Spearmint Rhino Companies (Europe) Limited

Claimant

Sonfield Developments Limited

Claimant

Dr Sasha Rakoff

Defendant

Not Buying It Limited

Defendant

Philip Charles Rashbrook

Defendant

Jeffrey Mitchell Hill

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (anonymity and Expedition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the individual claimants should be granted anonymity in the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the case should be expedited

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that anonymity was strictly necessary or that expedition was justified. The principle of open justice requires parties' names to be public unless exceptional circumstances are proven. The risk of unauthorised disclosure of footage was speculative and insufficient to warrant expedition.

Court Disposition

Applications for anonymity and expedition refused.

Orders

  • Application for anonymity order refused.
  • Application for expedited trial refused.