JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors

Reporting restrictions may be imposed under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or powers giving effect to Convention rights where necessary to balance privacy and family life against open justice. The interests of children include their emotional well-being. Protecting those interests may justify restricting access to specified evidence and reports, even where similar information is available abroad, if it is unlikely to reach the children without further effort. Restrictions may be imposed temporarily, with provision for review and permission to apply.

This was an interlocutory application during the trial of enforcement proceedings concerning trusts alleged to hold assets connected with the first defendant. The application was made on behalf of three young children who were defendants by their litigation friend.

The applicants sought restrictions on inspection of parts of a witness statement and on reporting of evidence concerning Children Act proceedings, the children’s personal information, their relationships with their parents, and specified matters concerning the breakdown of their parents’ relationship. The central issues were the proper jurisdiction for reporting restrictions, the effect of open justice, and whether protection of the children justified the orders sought.

1. Jurisdiction. The court held that the reporting restrictions should not be approached principally as an application under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1982. The proper approach was to exercise the court’s inherent power and/or power arising from the Human Rights Act in giving effect to Convention rights, balancing private and family life against open justice.
2. Open justice and children. Public hearings remain the general rule. Nevertheless, restrictions may be imposed in appropriate circumstances, including to protect children. The interests of children include their emotional well-being. The relevant risk was that information about the children and their family circumstances might reach fellow pupils or their parents and be put to the children, causing emotional harm.
3. Application. The court granted the requested restrictions concerning the four identified topics. The existence of similar material in a Russian-language magazine did not remove the practical value of restrictions in London, since accessing that material would ordinarily require substantial additional effort. The order nevertheless allowed the entire trial to proceed in public.
4. Temporary character and review. The order was made at that stage of the proceedings and could be reconsidered after the proceedings ended. The court included express permission to apply, available to the parties and to others, including members of the press.