Imam v Croydon LBC

The claimant sought an order under CPR 39.2(4) anonymising her name in the trial judgment and imposing reporting restrictions. The court applied the established balancing exercise between Article 8 (private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights, with particular regard to the principles in XXX v Camden and Moss v Information Commissioner. The judge found the application was made late, after public proceedings and without supporting evidence about the likely or specific consequences of publication, and that the claimant (an adult litigant) had accepted the public nature of proceedings by initiating them. Given the absence of evidence that publication would cause a sufficiently serious interference with the claimant's Article 8 rights, and the importance of open justice under Article 10 and Article 6, the court concluded that non-disclosure was not "necessary" under CPR 39.2(4) and dismissed the application.

This is the reserved judgment dealing with the claimant's late application for anonymisation and reporting restrictions under CPR 39.2(4) following a public judicial review trial concerning the defendant's duties under Parts 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 1996. The claimant is a wheelchair user and complained that the accommodation provided was unsuitable; the trial judgment (handed down separately, [2021] EWHC 739 (Admin)) contained a paragraph describing highly personal matters related to continence and access to a downstairs toilet. The claimant applied, very shortly before the trial judgment was to be handed down, for anonymisation and restriction of reporting.

The court framed the issues as whether non-disclosure was "necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of" the claimant under CPR 39.2(4), requiring an intense, case-specific balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 rights and consideration of the Human Rights Act 1998 section 12 factors and established authorities (notably XXX v Camden and Moss v Information Commissioner).

• Nature of relief sought: anonymisation of the claimant's name in the judgment and reporting restrictions under CPR 39.2(4).
• Issues considered: (i) whether the court could entertain such an application after a public trial; (ii) whether publication of the claimant's name would cause a sufficiently serious, specific interference with Article 8 rights to justify derogation from open justice; (iii) whether less intrusive measures (anonymising only the judgment or redaction) would be appropriate or workable; and (iv) whether the Equality Act 2010 had any bearing.

The court held that such orders can in principle be made at any stage, including after a public judgment, but the balancing exercise must be applied. The claimant bore the burden of showing necessity. The judge emphasised the absence of any evidence from the claimant or medical witnesses about the likely impact of publication, the late timing of the application (after the public trial and at the last minute), and the claimant's choice to initiate public proceedings. The judge therefore concluded that the Article 8 interference contended for was not shown to be of a degree necessitating an anonymity order, that anonymising only the judgment without reporting restrictions would be unenforceable and inappropriate, and that redaction would undermine the comprehensibility of the trial judgment where the material was central evidence. The court dismissed the application and handed down the trial judgment without anonymisation or redaction.

The Claimant's application under CPR 39.2(4) for anonymisation and reporting restrictions is dismissed. The judge applied the Article 8/Article 10 balancing exercise from XXX v Camden and Moss v Information Commissioner, found the application to be made too late and unsupported by any evidence of specific or serious harm, and concluded that non-disclosure was not necessary to secure the proper administration of justice. Alternative proposals to anonymise only the judgment or to redact central material were rejected as unenforceable or inimical to open justice.