NCL v MME [2020] EWHC 2594 (QB) (28 September 2020)

NCL v MME [2020] EWHC 2594 (QB) (28 September 2020)

The Claimant established a strong case that publication of the Book would breach her statutory right to anonymity and her reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the invasion of privacy was serious, extensive, and disproportionate to any legitimate purpose. The risk of identification and harm justified interim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2594
Parties
Claimant: NCL; Defendant: MME
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Without Notice, Pre Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction granted; anonymity order made; restriction on access to statements of case and witness statements ordered.
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Anonymity Orders, Sexual Offences (amendment) Act 1992, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Interim Injunctions, Open Justice, Without Notice Applications
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Law Misuse of Private Information Anonymity Orders Sexual Offences (amendment) Act 1992 Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +3 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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NCL

Claimant

MME

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Without Notice, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether continued publication of the Book breaches the Claimant's right to privacy and statutory anonymity under section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction should be granted without notice to the Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is likely to succeed at trial in restraining publication

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant established a strong case that publication of the Book would breach her statutory right to anonymity and her reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the invasion of privacy was serious, extensive, and disproportionate to any legitimate purpose. The risk of identification and harm justified interim injunctive relief without notice to the Defendant. Damages would not be an adequate remedy.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted; anonymity order made; restriction on access to statements of case and witness statements ordered.

Orders

  • The Defendant is restrained from publishing or continuing to publish the Book or any information likely to identify the Claimant as a complainant of a sexual offence.
  • Anonymity order granted for the Claimant.