NT 1 & Anor v Google LLC (Rev 2)

Interim anonymity and reporting restrictions must be strictly necessary and clearly justified. The court must balance protection of proceedings with open justice and freedom of expression. A staged inquiry considers the risk created by reporting, the effectiveness of the proposed restriction, less restrictive alternatives, and whether any residual risk is tolerable. The court may rely on section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, inherent jurisdiction, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Two claimants brought “right to be forgotten” claims against Google concerning search results said to contain inaccurate, stale or irrelevant information about old criminal convictions. At this adjourned pre-trial review, the court considered proposed anonymity and reporting restrictions, including the scope and clarity of prohibited identifying information and proposed ciphers. It also considered the Information Commissioner’s application to intervene on legal issues relevant to the claims.

1. The Information Commissioner was permitted to intervene by written and oral submissions because the proposed issues were relevant, her statutory role was directly engaged, and her submissions were likely to assist the court.
2. Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides an ancillary power to prohibit publication of a name or matter withheld from the public. Its wider application to information revealed in open court was left undecided. Alternative jurisdiction existed under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, CPR Parts 1 and 3, CPR 39.2(4), and section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
3. Reporting restrictions and anonymity orders must be strictly necessary and clearly justified. The court applied the staged inquiry in Ex p The Telegraph Group plc: identify the risk, assess whether the proposed order removes it, consider less restrictive means, and assess whether any remaining risk is tolerable.
4. The claimants’ names required protection because publication connected with the proceedings could defeat the purpose of seeking de-listing. A non-exhaustive list of identifying matters was permissible and proportionate. The order was revised to improve clarity and preserve reporting of public judgments and documents accessible on the court file.
5. The reporting-restriction orders were made in substantially the proposed form and were to remain under review.