CVB v MGN Ltd [2012] EWHC 1148 (QB) (03 May 2012)

CVB v MGN Ltd [2012] EWHC 1148 (QB) (03 May 2012)

A r.16 anonymity order is not an injunction or interim remedy and does not require notice to the intended defendant under HRA s.12(2) or CPR r.23. The order is a permissive measure to allow proceedings to be issued anonymously and is not 'relief against' the defendant. On the evidence, there is no sufficient general public interest in identifying the claimant to justify curtailing her and her family's right to private and family life. The anonymity order is continued, subject to being no wider than necessary and to review if circumstances change.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1148 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: CVB; Defendant: MGN Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Privacy/breach of Confidence Claim / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside or Vary Anonymity Order
Outcome
Anonymity order continued with modifications
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, Freedom of Expression, Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Anonymity Orders Open Justice Freedom of Expression Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CVB

Claimant

MGN Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Privacy/breach of Confidence Claim / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside or Vary Anonymity Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an anonymity order (r.16 order) should be continued in privacy proceedings against a news publisher
  2. 2 Whether notice of an application for a r.16 order must be given to the intended defendant or others under HRA s.12(2) and CPR r.23
  3. 3 Whether the evidence justifies derogation from open justice by continuing the anonymity order

Ratio Decidendi

A r.16 anonymity order is not an injunction or interim remedy and does not require notice to the intended defendant under HRA s.12(2) or CPR r.23. The order is a permissive measure to allow proceedings to be issued anonymously and is not 'relief against' the defendant. On the evidence, there is no sufficient general public interest in identifying the claimant to justify curtailing her and her family's right to private and family life. The anonymity order is continued, subject to being no wider than necessary and to review if circumstances change.

Court Disposition

Anonymity order continued with modifications

Orders

  • Claimant dispensed from giving her name and address on the claim form (anonymity order continued)
  • Order under CPR r.5.4C restricting non-party access to documents identifying the claimant or her children