Case No. HQ17P02006
Application No. B3/2020/034 7(A)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
14 January 2021
(1) THE TRUSTEES OF THE BARRY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH
(2)WATCH TOWER & BIBLE TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA
UPON READING the Respondent’s Application Notice dated 16th December 2020
AND UPON READING the appellant’s email dated 12th January 2021 agreeing to the order sought (save in respect of costs)
AND UPON consideration of the Respondent’s Article 8 right to respect for private and family life and the Article 10 right of freedom of expression
AND UPON IT APPEARING the case is likely to attract publicity and that revealing the identity of the Respondent’s is likely to unfairly damage the interests of the Respondent’s and that, accordingly, publication of details revealing the Respondent’s identity ought to be prohibited.
AND PURSUANT to sl 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and CPR Rule 5.4A to 5.4D and CPR Rule 39.2(4) BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED that
There be substituted for all purposes of this appeal, in place of references to the Respondent, and whether orally or in writing, references to the letters “BXB”. To the extent necessary to protect the Respondent’s identity, any other references, whether to persons or places or otherwise, be adjusted appropriately, with permission to the parties to apply in default of agreement as to the manner of such adjustments. So far as any judgment or order, or any other document to which anyone might have access pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4A-D at anytime does not comply with the above, the Respondent’s solicitor has leave to file with the court copies of such document adjusted so as to comply therein. Such copies are to be treated for all purposes as being in substitution for the relevant originals; and the originals are then to be retained by the court in a sealed envelope marked: “not to be opened without the permission of a Judge or Master of the Court of Appeal”. A non-party may not obtain any copy statement of case or other document from the court file unless it has been edited (anonymised) in accordance with this direction. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Respondent.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
There be no order as to costs.
In respect of the costs order I agree with the appellant’s submission that as the appellant as not opposed the application the appropriate order is for there to be no order as to costs.