HSX v Daniel Ryan & Ors

An interim non-disclosure injunction may be continued in a blackmail case where serious threats, a reasonable expectation of privacy, likely disclosure without restraint, no legitimate interest in publication and inadequate damages make restraint necessary and proportionate. Where the order might affect freedom of expression, the Human Rights Act 1998 requires a strong merits assessment. A blackmailer’s Article 10 interest normally carries little weight. The court may proceed at a return date in a defendant’s absence where service and notice are established and a liberty-to-apply safeguard remains. Open justice may require reporting restrictions to be discharged while anonymity and document-access restrictions continue where justified.

Following an urgent without-notice hearing, an interim injunction was made restraining threatened disclosure of intimate communications and prohibiting contact with the claimant and associated persons. At the return date, the defendants did not appear or communicate with the court.

The court considered whether it could proceed in their absence, whether the injunction and related mandatory provisions should continue, and whether postponed reporting restrictions should be discharged while anonymity and restrictions on access to court documents remained. The central issues were necessity and proportionality, the statutory merits threshold for an injunction affecting freedom of expression, and the requirements of open justice.

Disposition and procedural fairness

1. Proceeding in absence. The court proceeded because the defendants had been served with the papers, notified of the hearing and given further notice of its rescheduled time. None had indicated a wish to participate, a defence or difficulty in participating. A liberty-to-apply provision supplied an appropriate safeguard for variation or discharge. The court took account of the different procedural context of the observations in Pirtek v Jackson [2017] EWHC 2834 (QB) at paragraphs 19–22.
2. Open justice. The postponed reporting restrictions were discharged. The hearing was public and the judgment and substantive order were to be published. Anonymity and restrictions on access to court documents remained because they were necessary and proportionate. The court had regard to the Practice Guidance (Interim Non-Disclosure Orders) [2012] 1 WLR 1003.
3. Necessity and proportionality. Although this was not a trial and no findings of fact were made, the evidence was substantiated and uncontroverted for the interim application. The threats were serious, substantial payments had been made and demanded, significant harm had occurred, and disclosure would affect family life. The material carried a reasonable expectation of privacy. The claimant was not a public figure, no legitimate interest in disclosure was identified, disclosure was likely without restraint, and damages were not an adequate solution. The injunction, including its non-molestation provisions, was therefore necessary and proportionate.
4. Freedom of expression and merits. Applying the guidance in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44 [2005] 1 AC 253, the court treated the statutory trigger as engaged because the remedy might affect freedom of expression. It was satisfied that the claimant was likely to succeed at trial and likely to establish that publication should not be legally allowed. The court applied the approach in YXB v TNO [2015] EWHC 826 (QB) and LJY v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 3230 (QB) [2018] EMLR 19, giving little weight to a blackmailer’s freedom of expression. Any general extra-territoriality issue was not resolved as a standalone question; the strong UK connections and lack of any legitimate Article 10 interest were sufficient on the evidence.
5. Order design. Related proceedings in RXE KB-2026-002349 provided contextual evidence of overlapping activity, but the court made no trial findings. The replacement order was drafted as a freestanding source, with clear non-cumulative descriptions of the fourth defendant, a definite deadline for mandatory information, reordered injunction terms and a qualification preventing variation by agreement from undermining open justice without permission.

The interim injunction and related provisions were continued, subject to the revised order.

• Urgent without-notice stage: Farbey J made an interim injunction order following an urgent telephone hearing.
• Return date before the High Court: Fordham J proceeded in the defendants’ absence, continued the injunction in revised form and discharged the postponed reporting restrictions while retaining other protective measures.