Kamala Devi Singh v Grief to Grace & Ors.

An anonymity order is an exceptional derogation from open justice. It may be made only where non-disclosure is strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and is supported by clear and cogent evidence. The least restrictive measure must be used.

Permission to amend is governed by the overriding objective and requires a balance between the applicant’s prejudice and the prejudice to opponents and other court users. A new claim must have a real prospect of success. Where limitation is engaged, the proposed claim must arise from the same or substantially the same facts as facts then in issue. Claims for misuse of private information, breach of confidence and data protection must comply with the applicable pleading requirements.

The claimant sought an anonymity order and permission to amend her claim against organisations, clergy and diocesan defendants. The proposed claims concerned alleged disclosure and misuse of personal, private and confidential information, data protection breaches, and related matters arising from communications about her application to attend a spiritual and psychological healing retreat.

The claim had undergone several iterations. Earlier defamation claims had been refused and struck out. The claimant then sought permission to rely on revised particulars of claim, supported by a confidential schedule. The defendants opposed the amendments but were neutral on anonymity.

The issues were whether anonymity was necessary despite the confidential information relied upon, and whether the revised pleading was sufficiently clear and particularised, had a real prospect of success, and avoided the limitation problem under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 17.4.

1. Anonymity. The application was refused. Open justice is fundamental, and anonymity is justified only in exceptional circumstances where it is strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice. The applicant bears the burden of proving that necessity by clear and cogent evidence. A confidential schedule was a sufficient and less restrictive safeguard for the information relied upon. Identification of the claimant would not frustrate the administration of justice.
2. Amendment principles. The discretion under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rules 17.1(2)(b) and 17.3 is broad, but the overriding objective is central. The court must balance injustice to the applicant against prejudice to the opposing parties, other litigants and the efficient use of court resources. Timing, the explanation for delay, compliance with procedural obligations, trial disruption and the strength of the proposed case are material considerations. A new claim must have a real prospect of success; a fanciful prospect is insufficient.
3. Limitation. Under rule 17.4, the court must consider whether the amendment is arguably out of time, whether it adds or substitutes a new cause of action, whether it arises from the same or substantially the same facts as those already in issue, and whether permission should be granted. Facts formerly pleaded but abandoned or struck out are no longer in issue and cannot be used for that comparison. Limitation may also apply by analogy to an equitable claim where the equitable and legal remedies correspond.
4. Pleading requirements and result. Practice Direction 53 required the claimant to identify the private or confidential information, the grounds for privacy or confidentiality, the alleged use or disclosure, the relevant data-processing acts and the alleged breaches. Those requirements were fundamental. The revised pleading remained prolix, confusing and unclear, failed to identify the information and processing relied upon, and raised limitation obstacles. Permission to amend was refused and the claim was struck out.

The judgment records earlier procedural stages in the High Court. On 18 July 2022 the court refused the proposed defamation amendments and struck out the defamation claims. The present judgment determined the anonymity application and the remaining amendment application.