CTY -v- LQS (anonymity order)

High CourtKing's Bench DivisionMedia and Communications ListAnonymity Order

Claim number: KB-2026-002432

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Media and Communications List

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Murray

Between:

CTY
(Claimant/Applicant)

-v-

LQS
(Defendant/Respondent)

Order

UPON the Applicant’s application by Application Notice dated 5 August 2026 for various forms of injunctive relief and related directions (“the Application”)

AND UPON the Court noting that this claim is related to two other claims brought by the Applicant, namely, CTY v Google LLC (KB-2026-000912) and CTY v FTM (KB-2026-002298) (“the Related Cases”), in relation to each of which the Applicant has been granted an anonymity order and, in relation to the latter Related Case, the Defendant/Respondent, FTM, has been anonymised

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The names of the Claimant and the Defendant are set out in the Confidential Schedule to this Order. Until the Hearing (as defined in paragraph 4 of this Order), and having regard to CPR r 39.2(4):
    a) the Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as “CTY”, the Claimant’s name and address shall not be disclosed, whether directly or indirectly, and there shall be no publication or disclosure of any information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant as the claimant in these proceedings; and
    b) the Defendant shall be referred to in these proceedings as “LQS”, the Defendant’s name and address shall not be disclosed, whether directly or indirectly, and there shall be no publication or disclosure of any information likely to lead to the identification of the Defendant as the defendant in these proceedings.
  2. Until the Hearing, in accordance with CPR r 5.4C(4), no third party may obtain a copy of a statement of case under CPR r 5.4C(1).
  3. The judge hearing the Application at the Hearing will consider whether it is strictly necessary to maintain the anonymity of the Claimant and the Defendant prior to trial or the restriction in paragraph 2 of this Order, having regard to the principle of open justice bearing in mind the nature of this claim and any relevant defence or counterclaim.
  4. The Application is to be listed for a hearing on the first available date after 1 October 2026 with a time estimate of half a day (“the Hearing”).
  5. Each party is to contact the KB Judges’ Listing Office by 4.30pm on 1 September 2026 to fix the Hearing as directed by paragraph 4 of this Order.
  6. The Claimant is directed to serve this Order on the Defendant no later than one working day after service of this Order on the Claimant by the Court, together with the Application (if not previously served on the Defendant) and a non-anonymised copy of the Claim Form and all supporting documentation filed by the Claimant with the Court in connection with this claim to the extent not previously served on the Respondent.
  7. Each party has liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on at least 48 hours’ notice to the Court and the other party.
  8. The Claimant has permission under CPR rr 6.15 and 6.27 to serve the Claim Form, the Application, this Order, and any other relevant documentation to the Defendant as the email address for the Defendant specified in the Confidential Schedule to this Order. The Claimant consents to service on her of statements of case and other documents by email to the email address for the Claimant specified in the Confidential Schedule to this Order.
  9. Costs reserved.

REASONS

(1) The Application, which was prepared by the Claimant acting as a litigant in person, is lengthy and detailed, but not entirely clear or coherent, nor does all the pre-trial relief it seeks appear to be fully justified by the materials filed. It is necessary, therefore, for the Application to be considered at a hearing on notice so that the Court may be assisted in determining what pre-trial orders are genuinely justified in this case.
(2) The Claimant has self-certified that this is vacation business, however, on a review of the papers, this is not vacation business. Undoubtedly this is an important matter for the Claimant, but it is generally true that litigation is important for the parties and usually at least one party wants matters to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. It is for the court to determine the time at which and the order in which matters will be dealt with, accommodating, where feasible, what is convenient and/or practicable for the parties, having regard to all of the business that is before the Court.
(3) It is not entirely clear from the papers filed by the Claimant what evidence was presented to the Court by the Claimant in relation to the Related Matters regarding the need for anonymity. To preserve the position until the Hearing of the Application, I have made this anonymity order, using the same cipher for the Claimant given the connection between these matters. In her application, the Claimant has self-selected and used another cipher for the Respondent, however it is better to use a cipher that does not include the actual initials of the Defendant.
(4) The fact that the Related Matters have been anonymised is important, but the judge hearing the Application should nonetheless consider whether an anonymity order, a restriction under CPR 5.4C and/or any other derogations from the principle of open justice prior to trial are genuinely justifiable and, at the time of the Hearing continue to be justified, in light of the principle of open justice, which requires any derogation to be justified by strict necessity, bearing in mind the nature of this claim and any relevant defence or counterclaim.
(5) The KB Judges’ Listing Office has confirmed to me that the Claim has been issued, however the Claimant claims not to have received the issued Claim Form. I direct the Listing Office, when serving a sealed copy of this Order on the Claimant, to send to her at the same time a sealed copy of the Claim Form.
(6) The Claimant maintains that she does not know the Defendant’s postal address. At this preliminary stage, it is justified, having regard to current circumstances, for alternative service to be permitted by email. The Claimant consents to service on her of statements of case and other documents by email.

Dated this 17th day of August 2026