Bonne Terre and Hestview -v- RTM (anonymity order)

Court of Appeal Civil DivisionKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: CA-2025-000651

In the Court of Appeal
On appeal from the King’s Bench Division
KB-2023-000775

7 May 2026

Before:

Lord Justice Warby

Between:

(1) Bonne Terre Limited
(2) Hestview Limited
(Defendants/Appellants)

-v-

RTM
(Claimant/Respondent)

and

The Information Commissioner
(Intervener)

Order

UPON the application of “KBP” (the applicant) dated 2 April 2026 and sealed on 1 May 2026, for permission to intervene in the appeal proceedings, permission to adduce fresh evidence, and other orders and directions (the First Application)

AND UPON the applicant’s further application dated and filed on 22 April 2026 and sealed on 7 May 2026, for an order that the judgment dated 21 April 2025 be varied or set aside “insofar as it affects the applicant”, that the applicant have permission to intervene in the appeal, permission to rely on fresh evidence, and other orders and directions (the Second Application)

AND UPON consideration of the papers and without an oral hearing and without receiving or inviting representations from the Appellants, Respondent or Intervener

IT IS ORDERED THAT

  1. Anonymity and confidentiality orders are made to the extent set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 below but otherwise the First and Second Applications are dismissed.

Anonymity and confidentiality

  1. Subject to the exceptions in paragraph 3 below, the following restrictions shall apply unless and until the court orders otherwise:

2.1 There shall be substituted for all purposes in these appellate proceedings in place of references to the applicant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the letters “KBP”.

2.2 There must be no publication of (a) the name of the applicant or (b) any other matter, the publication of which is liable to or might identify the applicant as the person who made the First Application or the Second Application or (c) details of any health condition of the applicant.

2.3 No document relating to these appellate proceedings which contains matter the publication of which is prohibited by paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 above shall be supplied by the court pursuant to CPR 5.4C or otherwise unless it has first been redacted to remove that matter or a written application for permission to obtain such a document has been filed and served on the applicant and the court has made an order granting permission.

3. Nothing in this Order shall prevent the publication of any information which

(a) is disclosed in this Order or in any other order or at any public hearing or in any public judgment in these appellate proceedings or

(b) was already in, or hereafter comes into, the public domain in England and Wales (other than as a result of breach of this Order)

Applications to discharge or vary

  1. The applicant, the parties and any person affected by the orders at paragraphs 2 and 3 above may apply to discharge or vary them but any such application must be made in writing on at least 3 days’ notice to all parties.

Definitions

  1. In this order the word “publication” includes any speech, writing, broadcast or other communication in whatever form (including internet and social media) which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

NOTES:

1) A copy of this order shall be published on the judiciary website pursuant to CPR 39.4

(2) Where an application (other than an application for permission to appeal) has been refused on the papers, the applicant may request that the decision be reconsidered.

(3) An application for reconsideration must be filed within 7 days after the party is served with notice of the decision.

(4) The reconsideration will be determined by the same or another judge on paper without an oral hearing; except that the judge determining the reconsideration on paper may direct that the reconsideration be determined at an oral hearing, and must so direct if the judge is of the opinion that the reconsideration cannot be fairly determined on paper without an oral hearing: see CPR 52.24.

      REASONS

      1. This appeal was heard on 10 and 11 March 2026, when the court reserved its judgment. The First Application was not filed until some three weeks later. That is very late in the proceedings. However, the application should have been processed in time to be considered by the court before judgment was given. Due to administrative error that did not happen. On 21 April 2026 the court gave judgment and allowed the appeal on all grounds without addressing or knowing of the First Application. The Second Application was filed the following day.
      2. In the circumstances it is appropriate to consider both applications. But there is no need to invite submissions from the parties as the applications are plainly hopeless. There is no basis to set aside the court’s judgment or to permit the applicant to intervene in the appeal or to file evidence.  

        Merits
      3. Intervention can only be permitted where it would be “desirable” for one of the purposes specified in CPR 19.2. Absent some compelling reason it would obviously be undesirable to expand the scope of this appeal, especially after a long-awaited 2 day hearing had concluded. The applicant has presented nothing approaching a compelling reason. The issues raised by the appeal did not relate to the applicant in any way. Nothing in the court’s judgment determines or relates to the applicant’s civil rights. The applicant is not “affected by” the judgment, except to the extent that it decides an issue of law that may be of relevance to the applicant, as it may be to many others. Nor does the evidence the applicant seeks to adduce have any arguable bearing on any of the issues determined by this court. It is not the role of this court to decide factual issues relating to a dispute between a party and a non-party, least of all when the non-party is already pursuing separate proceedings in another jurisdiction (see below).

        Anonymity etc.
      4. I am nonetheless satisfied that it is necessary in all the circumstances to derogate from open justice to the extent of granting the anonymity and to some extent the confidentiality sought by the applicant, for the time being. The grant of this relief is designed to protect the applicant’s fair trial and privacy rights in similar fashion to the orders made in favour of RTM, who has been anonymised throughout the present proceedings. Paragraphs 2 to 5 are based on the anonymity order I made on 8 May 2025 in respect of RTM, adapted to reflect the status of the applicant and the applicant’s claim to confidentiality in some of the information he has provided to the court.
      5. In granting that relief I am relying in part on the decision of Mr Justice O’Hara dated 26 March 2026 to grant the applicant anonymity in respect of proceedings in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland (exhibit KB1), and the fact that the other exhibits before the court contain some medical or health information. I also bear in mind that the weight of the open justice principle in relation to the present application appears to be limited.
      6. I have made provision for parties and affected third parties to apply to vary or discharge.

      BY THE COURT