Louise Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors

Louise Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors

The judge had no jurisdictional foundation or evidential basis to anonymise the historic judges; open justice requires judges to be named unless compelling, specific evidence justifies anonymity; procedural irregularity and unfairness also warrant setting aside the order.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Louise Tickle; Appellant: Hannah Summers; Respondent: The BBC; Respondent: PA Media; Respondent: Associated Newspapers Limited; Respondent: Times Media Limited; Respondent: Guardian News and Media Limited; Respondent: Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited; Respondent: News Group Newspapers Limited; Respondent: Independent Television News Limited; Respondent: Reach PLC; Respondent: Surrey County Council; Respondent: Olga Sharif; Respondent: Urfan Sharif; Respondent: Beinash Batool; Respondent: U, V, W, X, Y and Z (Children); Advocate to the Court: William Tyzack and Sophie Cullis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Anonymity Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Judicial Accountability
Constitutional Law Family Law Media Law Human Rights Open Justice Anonymity Orders Reporting Restrictions Freedom of Expression +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Tickle

Appellant

Hannah Summers

Appellant

The BBC

Respondent

PA Media

Respondent

Associated Newspapers Limited

Respondent

Times Media Limited

Respondent

Guardian News and Media Limited

Respondent

Telegraph Media Group Holdings Limited

Respondent

News Group Newspapers Limited

Respondent

Independent Television News Limited

Respondent

Reach PLC

Respondent

Surrey County Council

Respondent

Olga Sharif

Respondent

Urfan Sharif

Respondent

Beinash Batool

Respondent

U, V, W, X, Y and Z (Children)

Respondent

William Tyzack and Sophie Cullis

Advocate to the Court

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to prohibit publication of judges' names
  2. 2 Whether the anonymisation order was irregular for lack of submissions, evidence or reasons
  3. 3 Whether the judge demonstrated inappropriate bias or unfairness towards the media

Ratio Decidendi

The judge had no jurisdictional foundation or evidential basis to anonymise the historic judges; open justice requires judges to be named unless compelling, specific evidence justifies anonymity; procedural irregularity and unfairness also warrant setting aside the order.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The part of the Order granting anonymity to the historic judges is set aside.
  • Historic judges' names may be published after 7 days to allow HMCTS to implement protective measures.