AVB v TDD

An interim non-disclosure injunction should be accompanied by active case management directed towards a trial or other final determination. The court should generally impose directions and a time limit on undertakings. If proceedings are not progressed in accordance with the CPR, the parties may be required to show cause why the injunction should continue. Any derogation from open justice or anonymisation must remain necessary and should be reviewed as the proceedings develop.

The claimant obtained without-notice orders restraining disclosure of private and confidential information and anonymising the parties. On the return date, the defendant appeared, raised her own complaints, and the parties submitted an agreed order containing mutual undertakings. The court declined the first draft because it lacked directions for progressing the action and a time limit for the undertakings. A revised draft included both matters. The issue was whether the interim protective orders should continue and, if so, on what case-management terms.

1. The court made an order substantially in the terms of the revised draft, including directions for progressing the action and a date on which the undertakings would expire unless renewed or discharged.
2. Following the Hutcheson v Popdog Ltd decision and the Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders, the court should not continue an interim non-disclosure order without active case management directed towards a trial or other final determination by agreement.
3. Where return dates are adjourned for valid reasons, or it appears that a trial is unlikely to take place, the court should consider dismissing the substantive action, proceeding to summary judgment, or entering judgment by consent. In actions not progressed in accordance with the CPR, the parties may be required to show cause why the injunction should continue, applying the approach in JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd.
4. The necessity of anonymisation, restrictions on access to confidential documents, and other derogations from open justice must be reviewed as the proceedings progress.