Wenjun Tian v Refinitiv Limited

The principle of open justice may be displaced only in exceptional circumstances, where the derogation is strictly necessary, supported by clear and cogent evidence, and proportionate. Reputational concerns ordinarily do not outweigh open justice, fair and public hearings, and freedom of expression where the relevant information is already public.

Valid service of a Claim Form founds jurisdiction. General case-management powers cannot cure late or invalid service. The specific rules governing extension, alternative service, and dispensation from service must be used, and cannot be employed to circumvent the demanding requirements for extending time after expiry.

The claimant brought a Norwich Pharmacal claim concerning his entry on the defendant’s World-Check database. He applied for a private hearing, anonymity, restrictions on access to the court file, and a glossary intended to prevent identification. The defendant applied under CPR Part 11 for a ruling that the court had no jurisdiction because the Claim Form had not been served within the prescribed four-month period.

The Claim Form was issued on 30 May 2025 but was not served within the period ending on 30 September 2025. It was later sent by email without the defendant’s prior agreement. The central issues were whether the privacy measures were justified, whether the defendant could challenge jurisdiction without first filing an acknowledgment of service, and whether the court could retrospectively validate or dispense with service.

1. Privacy applications. The applications for a private hearing and anonymity were refused. Open justice is the starting point. A departure requires exceptional circumstances, strict necessity, clear and cogent evidence, and proportionality. The hearing concerned procedural history and legal argument and could be conducted publicly.
2. The claimant’s asserted safety risks were unsupported by objective evidence. His reputational interests did not outweigh open justice, Article 6 and Article 10 rights, particularly because the relevant allegations and his identity were already in the public domain. The claimant’s home address was nevertheless ordered to be redacted from any publicly available court-file documents under CPR 5.4C(4), as a proportionate and limited measure.
3. Acknowledgment of service. The requirement to file an acknowledgment of service presupposes valid service of the Claim Form. Applying Robertson v Google LLC [2025] EWCA Viv 1262 and Bellway Homes Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 1347, no acknowledgment was required where the Claim Form had not been validly served. The defendant’s prompt application, supported by evidence, was therefore competent. Alternatively, any relief from sanction would have been granted.
4. Service and jurisdiction. Valid service of a Claim Form is the fundamental step founding jurisdiction. The failure to serve in time could not be remedied through CPR 3.9 or CPR 3.10. The claimant had not taken all reasonable steps required by CPR 7.6(3), and no extension would have been granted.
5. CPR 6.15 did not confer a power retrospectively to validate an out-of-time service which breached CPR 7.5. That issue belonged exclusively under CPR 7.6. In any event, there was no good reason for alternative service: the claimant knew the defendant’s postal address, had not obtained agreement to email service, and actual receipt was not a substitute for valid service.
6. CPR 6.16, printed in the judgment’s operative discussion as CPR 16.1, could not be used retrospectively to circumvent CPR 7.6(3). Following Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2002] 1 WLR 997, there were no exceptional circumstances. The without-notice approach to the Norwich Pharmacal application was unjustified and did not alter the ordinary application of the CPR.
7. The defendant’s Jurisdiction Application succeeded. Judgment was granted to the defendant on the claim.