AMC & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd

The return hearing of an interim injunction need not proceed where the parties agree orders containing undertakings and directions for trial. The court may record that outcome by open judgment where the agreed orders continue an anonymity order and therefore derogate from the principle of open justice.

The claimants sought the continuation of an interim injunction granted by Laing J on 1 August 2015. Laing J subsequently gave an open judgment, [2015] EWHC 2361 (QB), explaining the reasons for the injunction. At the listed return hearing, the parties agreed orders containing undertakings and directions for trial. The hearing therefore did not proceed. This judgment recorded that procedural outcome because the orders continued the claimants’ anonymity.

1. The listed return hearing did not go ahead because the parties agreed orders containing undertakings and directions for trial.
2. The court recorded that fact in an open judgment because the agreed orders provided for a derogation from the principle of open justice by continuing the anonymity order made by Laing J.
3. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the claim or finally resolve the issues raised by the injunction.

The judgment itself records the immediately preceding procedural history:

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Laing J granted an interim injunction on 1 August 2015 and gave an open judgment explaining it, [2015] EWHC 2361 (QB).
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The return hearing listed before Dingemans J on 5 August 2015 did not proceed after the parties agreed orders containing undertakings and directions for trial.