STU v UVW & Anor

An anonymity order and related derogations from open justice may be justified where identifying the parties or disclosing further information would create a real likelihood that the private and confidential information in issue would be revealed, defeating the purpose of the proceedings. The court may deal with anonymity at the same hearing as substantive interim relief where the defendants are represented and have had an adequate opportunity to address the application. A return date is not required where the order was made after notice and the circumstances make a further hearing unnecessary.

The claimant sought urgent interim protection against disclosure of private and confidential information. The defendants were represented at the hearing. The court granted a substantially agreed injunction, made anonymity orders and ordered a private hearing, protection of the hearing papers and ancillary measures restricting further dissemination.

The court also addressed the absence of a return date and the issue of issuing the claim form in anonymised form. The central questions were whether the derogations from open justice were necessary and whether the procedural arrangements were appropriate.

1. Interim relief and anonymity. The court granted an injunction in substantially agreed terms prohibiting disclosure of information concerning the claimant, with ancillary orders preventing further dissemination and permitting notice to persons to whom the defendants had already disclosed the information.
2. Derogations from open justice. It was necessary in the interests of justice to anonymise the parties, hold the hearing in private and protect the hearing papers. Without those measures, there was a real likelihood that information claimed to be private and confidential would be disclosed, defeating the purpose of the proceedings. The court treated the reasoning in JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd as materially analogous, despite the different facts.
3. Procedure. No return date was required. The claimant had given notice of the application, the defendants were represented, and the matter could be dealt with as if proceedings had been issued and an Application Notice had been served on the period prescribed by CPR Part 23.7. The claim form had not been issued only because an order was required for its issue in anonymised form.
4. The claim was to proceed in accordance with the CPR.

Not an appeal. The judgment records no prior appellate history.