Secake & Ors v Shared Services Connected Ltd (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 1022 (KB) (30 April 2026)

Secake & Ors v Shared Services Connected Ltd (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 1022 (KB) (30 April 2026)

The application for a class-based anonymity order failed because the Claimants did not provide specific, cogent evidence justifying anonymity for each individual or identified sub-group. Generalised assertions of harm, reliance on the data breach context, and speculative risks were insufficient to override the open justice principle. The court held that only in exceptional cases, supported by detailed evidence, can anonymity be granted, and the present application did not meet that threshold.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1022 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Lepani Secake; Claimant: Claimants listed in Schedule 1 to the Claim Form; Defendant: Shared Services Connected Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Data Breach Claim / Interlocutory Application for Anonymity Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, GDPR, Data Breach, Civil Litigation Procedure
Data Protection Civil Procedure Privacy Anonymity Orders Open Justice GDPR Data Breach Civil Litigation Procedure

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lepani Secake

Claimant

Claimants listed in Schedule 1 to the Claim Form

Claimant

Shared Services Connected Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Data Breach Claim / Interlocutory Application for Anonymity Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants are entitled to a class-based anonymity order in data breach proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the evidence provided justifies derogation from the open justice principle

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a class-based anonymity order failed because the Claimants did not provide specific, cogent evidence justifying anonymity for each individual or identified sub-group. Generalised assertions of harm, reliance on the data breach context, and speculative risks were insufficient to override the open justice principle. The court held that only in exceptional cases, supported by detailed evidence, can anonymity be granted, and the present application did not meet that threshold.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for anonymity order refused
  • Claimants to pay Defendant's costs, summarily assessed