NNN v Ryan & Ors

Interim relief restraining the use, publication or communication of private and confidential information may be continued where the evidence establishes the relevant threshold and the defendant consents to continuation pending trial. An anonymity order and private hearing require strict necessity. That requirement is met where disclosure of the claimant’s identity or the confidential material would undermine the purpose of the application. The court should apply the guidance governing interim non-disclosure orders and balance the relief sought against the principle of open justice.

The claimant sought continuation of an interim injunction restraining publication or communication of alleged private and confidential information, together with anonymity and related protective orders. The information was said to comprise a surreptitious recording of a private conversation, followed by a demand for a substantial payment accompanied by a threat of publication.

The injunction had been granted without notice by Tugendhat J. At the return hearing the first defendant was represented, while the second defendants had not been served. The first defendant disputed that the information was private or confidential, but accepted that the threshold for interim relief had been met and consented to continuation until trial or further order. The court also considered whether the hearing and claimant’s identity should remain private.

1. Interim injunction. The court continued the injunction granted by Tugendhat J, with additions, until trial or further order. The first defendant accepted that the relevant threshold for interim relief had been met, although privacy and confidentiality remained matters for trial.
2. Anonymity and private hearing. Anonymisation was strictly necessary under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 39.2. The hearing was properly conducted in private under rule 39.2(3)(a), (c) and (g), because identifying the claimant or revealing the confidential material would have made the application self-defeating. The court was satisfied on credible evidence that the derogations from open justice were strictly necessary.
3. Application of guidance. In deciding both the substance of the relief and the form of the order, the court applied the guidance in JIH v News Group Newspapers [2010] EWCA 2818 and Ntuli v Donald [2010] EWCA 1276, together with the Practice Guidance on Interim Non-Disclosure Orders issued by the Master of the Rolls.
4. The considerations were analogous to those in DFT v TFD [2010] EWHC 2335 (QB), AMM v HXW [2010] EWHC 2457 (QB) and KJH v HGF [2010] EWHC 3064 (QB). The anonymity order was continued and there was no present intention to serve the order on any non-party.

Not stated in the judgment.