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, made without notice to the defendant, is not an injunction or interim remedy and does not require notice under HRA s.12(2) or CPR r.23. The order is justified and should be continued because, on the evidence, there is no sufficient general public interest in identifying the claimant to outweigh her and her children's right to private and family life. However, the order should not be wider than necessary and should be subject to review as the case progresses.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1148
Parties
Claimant: CVB; Defendant: MGN Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Continue/modify Anonymity Order
Outcome
Order continued with modifications
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Civil Procedure Rules, Reporting Restrictions
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Anonymity Orders Open Justice Freedom of Expression Privacy Civil Procedure Rules +1 more

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CVB

Claimant

MGN Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Continue/modify Anonymity Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an anonymity order (r.16 order) made without notice to the defendant should be continued or varied
  2. 2 Whether notice to the defendant or others is required for such orders 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, made without notice to the defendant, is not an injunction or interim remedy and does not require notice under HRA s.12(2) or CPR r.23. The order is justified and should be continued because, on the evidence, there is no sufficient general public interest in identifying the claimant to outweigh her and her children's right to private and family life. However, the order should not be wider than necessary and should be subject to review as the case progresses.

Court Disposition

Order continued with modifications

Orders

  • Dispensation from giving name and address on claim form continued
  • Order under CPR r.5.4C restricting non-party access to identifying information in court records