SRU -v- GBT (anonymity order)
Case number: KB-2023-004272
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
24 November 2023
Before:
Master Dagnall
Between:
SRU
-v-
GBT
Anonymity Order
UPON consideration of the Court File
AND UPON consideration of the Claimant’s Article 8 right to respect for private and family life and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression
AND UPON Court considering that:
- The action might attract media attention and publicity.
2. Publicity revealing the identity or address/location of the Claimant could unfairly damage the interest of the Claimant and their family and give rise to serious harm to the Claimant or their family; and would defeat the object of the hearing and the claim.
3. The Claimant in this matter does not wish to disclose to the Defendant details as to their address/location owing to the nature of this case, and that such disclosure could give rise to a risk of serious harm to the Claimant or their family.
4. Non-disclosure of the identity of and anonymity of the Claimant and of their family and of their addresses/locations and of the identity of the Defendant is necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant and to secure the proper administration of justice.
5. The Claimant’s identity and address/location and the Defendant’s identity ought to be withheld from the public and should not be published, and that the Court should allow these prohibitions and give consequential directions, and that such prohibitions are necessary to secure the proper administration of justice.
6. It is necessary to sit in private to secure the proper administration of justice and including because publicity would subvert the purpose of the Application and this Order.
AND pursuant to the section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rules 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.10, 5.4 A-D and 39.2 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT:
- The identity and the address/location of the Claimant and of their family be not disclosed or published without the permission of the court (other than as required for the purposes of the carrying on of this action).
2. There be substituted for all purposes in this action in place of references to the Claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, reference to the sequence of characters, “SRU” and the Claimant shall be described in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings and in any judgment or order in the proceedings and in any report of the proceedings by the press or otherwise as “SRU”.
3. There be substituted for all purposes in this action in place of references to the Defendant by name, and whether orally or in writing, reference to the sequence of characters, “GBT” and the Defendant shall be described in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings and in any judgment or order in the proceedings and in any report of the proceedings by the press or otherwise as “GBT”. The address of the Defendant be stated in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings as their email address.
4. That insofar as necessary, any statement of case or other document disclosing the Claimant’s name or address already filed in the proceedings be replaced by a document describing such name or address in anonymised form as above (and in the meantime shall be kept confidential).
5. The Claimant has permission to redact from the Claim Form and any witness statement or other document which may be served upon the Defendant any statement of the Claimant’s address/location.
6. The original of any such statement of case or other document disclosing the name or address/location of the Claimant or the identity of the Defendant (and in particular any Claim Form, or any statement of case, judgment, Order or other document to which anyone might have access to pursuant to Rule 5.4 A-D or otherwise at any time) are to be retained by the Court in a sealed envelope, marked “Not to be opened without the permission of a Judge or Master or District Judge of the King’s Bench Division”, or, if electronically filed or scanned, shall be placed on the court file and marked “confidential: not to be opened without the permission of a Master or High Court Judge”.
7. Any person not a party to this action may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document on or from the Court file (other than this order duly anonymised as directed) and whether pursuant to Part 5.4 A-D of the Civil Procedure Rules or otherwise, without the permission of a Judge or Master of the King’s Bench Division. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant and the Court will effect service. The Court file is to be retained by the Court and marked “Anonymised”.
8. The reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant or the Defendant. The publication of the name or address/location of the Claimant or of any member of the Claimant’s immediate family is prohibited.
9. The Defendant may apply under CPR Rule 23.10 and CPR3.3(5) to set aside or vary this Order within seven days of service of it upon them.
10. This Order shall be further considered at the first hearing in this matter.
11. Any non-party affected by this Order may apply on notice to all parties to have this Order set aside or varied.
12. The Claimant has permission to apply to set aside or vary this order.
13. A copy of this Order shall be published on the judicial website of the High Court of Justice specifying that the Claimant shall be referred to as SRU and the Defendant shall be referred to as GBT.
FURTHER REASONS
- Until the Court has had an opportunity to hear from the Claimant, it seems to me that publicity or availability of the anonymised information would potentially subvert the purpose of the proceedings and cause harm to the Claimant and their family, and that the relevant conditions for an anonymity order in CPR38.2(4) for anonymity are satisfied.
- The Claim is presently stayed but there is to be a without notice hearing which will enable me to consider whether (1) this Order should continue and (2) the Claim should continue at all. I will be able to protect the principles of open justice so that any derogation is limited to what is necessary and appropriate. However, I cannot list such a hearing without first making this anonymity order or its purpose would be potentially subverted.
- Non-parties, and the Defendant, are protected by the judiciary website publication and the ability to apply to set aside or vary this order.