EWQ v GFD

An interim anti-harassment and non-disclosure order may be granted without notice where there is a real risk that notice would frustrate the purpose of the injunction. Under Human Rights Act 1998, section 12, the court must be satisfied that the claimant is likely to establish that threatened publication should not be permitted. Anonymity may be ordered where publicity would defeat the purpose of the hearing or would unfairly identify a defendant before she has had an opportunity to answer serious allegations.

The claimant sought protection against alleged harassment consisting of threats to disclose personal information and demands for payments said to be unwarranted. On 29 June 2012, without notice to the defendant, the court granted an order under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and a non-disclosure order. At the return date on 6 July 2012, the represented defendant sought further time and gave undertakings substantially reflecting the earlier order. The court considered continuation of the undertakings, the opportunity to apply to vary or discharge the order, and anonymity for both parties.

1. The court had been entitled to proceed without notice. On the evidence, there was a real risk that advance notice would enable the defendant to frustrate the purpose of the injunction.

2. The threatened publication concerned information which the court was likely to find private and confidential. There was no evidence indicating a public interest in disclosure or that the information was already in the public domain.

3. Applying Human Rights Act 1998, section 12, the court was satisfied that the claimant was likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.

4. Anonymity was necessary at this stage. Publicity would defeat the object of the hearing insofar as the claimant was concerned. It would also be unjust to identify the defendant before she had an opportunity to respond to serious allegations, particularly as her name had not otherwise been publicised.

5. The defendant’s undertakings were continued until the conclusion of a case management conference. The parties were required to apply to list that conference by 31 October 2012, and the defendant was given an opportunity to apply on 23 July 2012 to discharge or vary the order.

First-instance interim decision. On 29 June 2012, the court granted orders without notice. At the return date on 6 July 2012, the defendant was represented, gave undertakings, and was given an opportunity to seek discharge or variation.