Lupu & Ors v Rakoff & Ors

Lupu & Ors v Rakoff & Ors

The claimants failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that anonymity was strictly necessary to protect their legitimate interests or the administration of justice. The open justice principle prevails, and no reporting restriction was sought. The risk of unauthorised disclosure of footage is remote and does not justify expedition. Applications for anonymity and expedited trial are refused.

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
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, Expedited Trial, Reporting Restrictions
Privacy Data Protection Media Law Misuse of Private Information Anonymity Orders Open Justice Expedited Trial Reporting Restrictions

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 32 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the individual claimants should be anonymised in proceedings
  2. 2 Whether an order for expedited trial should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that anonymity was strictly necessary to protect their legitimate interests or the administration of justice. The open justice principle prevails, and no reporting restriction was sought. The risk of unauthorised disclosure of footage is remote and does not justify expedition. Applications for anonymity and expedited trial are refused.

Court Disposition

applications refused