NT1 v Google LLC

Applications for reporting restrictions in proceedings concerning anonymised claimants must be strictly necessary and clearly justified. The court must balance open justice and freedom of expression against the need to protect the information in issue. A contra mundum order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 should identify clearly what may not be published. It should not transfer to publishers the burden of deciding whether material from proceedings might identify a claimant. Where the media have not been notified, the application should ordinarily be adjourned to allow meaningful representations, subject to a limited interim order where necessary to preserve the position.

NT1 and NT2 brought separate claims against Google concerning the so-called right to be forgotten. Both claimants had been convicted of criminal offences and complained that Google search results continued to link to reports of their convictions. They had been anonymised earlier in the proceedings.

At a pre-trial review, before the substantive trials, the claimants applied under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 for reporting restrictions protecting their identities and related information. The applications were unopposed by Google, but the media had not been notified. The central issue was whether reporting restrictions were necessary and, if so, what terms would lawfully and practically protect anonymity without undermining open justice.

1. Applications adjourned. The applications for final reporting restriction orders under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 were adjourned for a short period so that notice could be given to the media and the parties could reconsider the scope and practical operation of the proposed orders. A more limited interim section 11 order was made to hold the ring.
2. An order protecting information in proceedings must be strictly necessary and clearly justified. It must remain under review. If the claim ultimately fails, the trial judge may need to reconsider anonymity and reporting restrictions.
3. Although section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to a contra mundum reporting restriction application in the absence of an identifiable respondent, fairness ordinarily requires that the media should be notified where practicable. The media provide a reasonable surrogate for the wider Article 10 interests and must have a meaningful opportunity to object or seek variation.
4. The proposed orders were too broad and potentially unworkable. The trial would necessarily consider the convictions and their reporting, but the court had to identify precisely what could not be published. The wording should not require publishers to decide for themselves what material might identify a claimant, since that would chill accurate reporting and risk contempt proceedings.
5. Open justice remained central. A private hearing is a measure of last resort. If essential evidence creates an identification risk, the parties and court should first consider whether the evidence or restriction can be framed more narrowly; only then should sitting in private be considered.