Hirschfeld v McGrath [2011] EWHC 249 (QB) (15 February 2011)

Hirschfeld v McGrath [2011] EWHC 249 (QB) (15 February 2011)

Anonymity order not continued because the risk of press intrusion does not justify derogation from open justice; undertakings by Defendant sufficiently protect Claimant's confidentiality without need for anonymity.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 249
Parties
Claimant: Stephanie Hirschfeld; Defendant: James McGrath
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Return Date Hearing
Outcome
Anonymity order not continued; Defendant's undertakings accepted.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality, Anonymity Orders, Publication Restraint

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanie Hirschfeld

Claimant

James McGrath

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Return Date Hearing

  1. 1 Whether to continue anonymity order
  2. 2 Scope of restraint on publication of confidential information

Ratio Decidendi

Anonymity order not continued because the risk of press intrusion does not justify derogation from open justice; undertakings by Defendant sufficiently protect Claimant's confidentiality without need for anonymity.

Court Disposition

Anonymity order not continued; Defendant's undertakings accepted.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from publishing, republishing, syndicating, using, communicating or disclosing information concerning the intimate former relationship, family life, and Claimant's health, except as contained in public judgment or Confidential Schedule.
  • Defendant permitted to disclose information to legal advisers, for purposes of carrying out order, or if information is in public domain due to national media publication.