CB v. APTHORP, BRIAN DREW

CB v. APTHORP, BRIAN DREW

Court granted a limited anonymity order because, on the facts, the interest of the private lives of the plaintiff and the foreseeable risk of further victimisation and psychological harm to the plaintiff and her daughters justified departing from the general rule of open justice; the restriction was proportionate (limited to anonymising the plaintiff's name), the writ's prior limited public disclosure and the timing did not produce prejudice to the defendant or require trial postponement, and alternatives were insufficient to protect the plaintiff's private interests.

Citation
[2023] HKDC 1556
Parties
Plaintiff: CB; Defendant: Apthorp, Brian Drew
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2023
Case Number
DCPI357/2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Pre Trial Review (application for Anonymity Order)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Anonymity Order, Open Justice Principle, Publication Restrictions, Victim Protection, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Personal Injuries Privacy Media Law Anonymity Order Open Justice Principle Publication Restrictions Victim Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CB

Plaintiff

Apthorp, Brian Drew

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Pre Trial Review (application for Anonymity Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an anonymity order restricting publication of the plaintiff's name should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the principle of open justice must be displaced and on what standard
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice or further victimisation if identified

Ratio Decidendi

Court granted a limited anonymity order because, on the facts, the interest of the private lives of the plaintiff and the foreseeable risk of further victimisation and psychological harm to the plaintiff and her daughters justified departing from the general rule of open justice; the restriction was proportionate (limited to anonymising the plaintiff's name), the writ's prior limited public disclosure and the timing did not produce prejudice to the defendant or require trial postponement, and alternatives were insufficient to protect the plaintiff's private interests.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Plaintiff to be referred to as "CB" throughout the proceedings.
  • Plaintiff's name shall appear and be reported as "CB" in any hearing, any document filed with the Registry in these proceedings, any report of the proceedings, the daily cause list and in any written rulings, orders and judgments to be published.