Hirschfeld v McGrath

Hirschfeld v McGrath

The anonymity order is not continued because the general rule of open justice prevails and there is insufficient justification for derogation; the Defendant is restrained by undertaking from publishing confidential information concerning the parties' intimate relationship, family life, and the Claimant's health.

Parties
Claimant: Stephanie Hirschfeld; Defendant: James McGrath
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Return Date Hearing on Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction continued by undertakings; anonymity order not continued.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Anonymity Order, Publication of Confidential Information, Marital Confidences
Privacy Confidentiality Family Law Interim Injunction Anonymity Order Publication of Confidential Information Marital Confidences

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanie Hirschfeld

Claimant

James McGrath

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Return Date Hearing on Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to continue the anonymity order
  2. 2 Whether to restrain publication of confidential information relating to marital relationship and health

Ratio Decidendi

The anonymity order is not continued because the general rule of open justice prevails and there is insufficient justification for derogation; the Defendant is restrained by undertaking from publishing confidential information concerning the parties' intimate relationship, family life, and the Claimant's health.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued by undertakings; anonymity order not continued.

Orders

  • The Defendant undertakes not to publish, republish, syndicate, use, communicate or disclose to any person any information concerning the intimate former relationship of the parties, their family life and/or the Claimant’s health, save for that contained in the public judgment of the Court and/or the Confidential...
  • Nothing in the order prevents the Defendant from seeking legal advice, complying with the order, or discussing the information with family, doctor, or counsellor as specified.