NNN v Paul Ryan and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Hon Mrs Justice Sharp,Mrs Justice Sharp |
| Judgment Date | 20 March 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 637 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ13X01096 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 20 March 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 637 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice Sharp
Case No: HQ13X01096
Matthew Nicklin (instructed by Sheridans) for the Claimant
Geoffrey Goldkorn of Goldkorn Mathias Gentle Page) for the First Defendant
Hearing date: 18 March 2013
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
At a without notice hearing on the 8 March 2013 heard in private, Tugendhat J granted an application for an interim injunction in this matter until the return date. In summary, it restrained the Defendants from (a) using, publishing or communicating the Claimant's private and confidential information (the Information); and (b) publishing any information which was liable to or might identify the Claimant as a party to the proceedings and/or as the subject of the Information or which might lead to the Claimant's identification in such a respect. He also made other orders against the First Defendant, including for disclosure, and for the delivery up of specified materials containing the Information.
As the order Tugendhat J made recorded, the Court considered there were compelling reasons for notice not being given, namely that the First Defendant, purporting to act on behalf of the Second Defendants, has demanded a very substantial sum for delivering up the materials referred to in the Confidential Schedule 2 to the Order; and that there was a real risk that, if given notice of this application, one or more of the Defendants would disclose or publish the materials and/or information referred to in the Confidential Schedule 2 to the Order.
Tugendhat J was satisfied it was strictly necessary for the Claimant to be anonymised in these proceedings in accordance with CPR 39.2, and that no copies of the confidential schedules to the statements of case or of the witness statements and the applications should be provided to non-parties without further order of the Court. He also made consequential orders for the protection of the hearing papers.
This is the public judgment given following the return date hearing, at which the First Defendant was represented by his solicitor, Mr Goldkorn (the Second Defendants have not yet been served with notice of the proceedings). I was satisfied it was strictly necessary for the hearing to be in private pursuant to CPR 39.2(3)(a), (c)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NNN v 1. Paul Ryan and Another
...seek the protection of the law. 3 There has been a previous open court judgment in this case, that of Sharp J dated 20 March 2013 ( [2013] EWHC 637 (QB)), to which I refer generally, and in particular for her summary of the law governing anonymity which I adopt. That judgment explained why......