Howell v Evans & Anor

On an interim application, the court may require a claimant to clarify the cause of action against a defendant before requiring a defence, particularly where the claim’s legal basis and representative capacity are unclear. Proceedings should not be dismissed prematurely where further information may clarify the case. Confidential material filed in open proceedings should be removed or appropriately redacted where it contains information concerning persons who have not been heard. Any restriction affecting open justice should be considered on notice, with interested non-parties given a proper opportunity to apply to vary or set aside the order.

The claimant, a member and union delegate of the Labour Party, brought proceedings concerning alleged wrongdoing connected with the 2017 general election and an internal Labour Party report concerning antisemitism allegations. He sought urgent injunctive relief, disclosure, confidentiality directions and orders relating to the defendants’ Party membership and conduct.

The application was initially made without notice and was adjourned by Murray J for an on-notice hearing. At the hearing, the claimant withdrew the application in its entirety. The defendants nevertheless sought directions concerning the second defendant’s identity and the confidentiality of the report. The issues were whether the proceedings against the second defendant should be dismissed immediately and what protective steps should be taken concerning the report.

1. Interim application. The claimant withdrew his application in its entirety. The court therefore had no need to determine the merits of the proposed urgent relief.
2. Second defendant. The proceedings against the former General Secretary were not dismissed at that stage. The claimant’s case appeared to have changed and the precise cause of action, including whether the defendant was sued personally or representatively, remained unclear. The claimant was directed to provide further information explaining the cause of action relied on against him. The defendants could then apply to strike out if appropriate.
3. First defendant and representation. It was accepted that the prospective General Secretary could appropriately be named as representative of the Labour Party, an unincorporated association. Any necessary direction under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 19.1, was not disputed.
4. Confidential report. The report contained confidential information identifying individuals who had not been given notice or heard. Although it had reportedly been leaked and might be available online, the leak had not been authorised by the Labour Party. Reference to the report was unnecessary because the claimant had withdrawn his application.
5. The report was directed to be removed from the court file. Reference to it was not to be made until the parties agreed appropriate redactions or obtained a fuller on-notice ruling. Under CPR 39.2(5), interested non-parties, including members of the press, retained the ability to apply to attend, make submissions, or seek to set aside or vary the order.