XJA v News Group Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Sharp |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 3174 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ10D04315 |
| Date | 03 December 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 3174 (QB)
Before : Mrs Justice Sharp DBE
Case No: HQ10D04315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
James Price QC (instructed by Charles Russell) for the Claimant
Richard Spearman QC (instructed by Farrer & Co.) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 26 November 2010
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.
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SHARP
Publication of any report as to the subject matter of these proceedings or the identity of the Claimant is limited to that contained in this judgment
Mrs Justice Sharp:
I am asked to approve a consent order agreed between the parties. It contains provisions (in particular relating to anonymity) which require the approval of the court since they derogate from the principle of open justice.
I have heard oral submissions from James Price QC on behalf of the Claimant, and written submissions from Richard Spearman QC on behalf of the Defendant.
All of the hearings to which this judgment refers, were held in private. I was satisfied it was necessary for the hearings which were held before me, to be held in private pursuant to CPR 39.2(3)(a)(c) and (e) because otherwise the applications would be self-defeating.
The Claimant, XJA made an application on short notice to the Defendant for an interim injunction, restraining the publication of certain information, which the Defendant had informed XJA earlier that day, it intended to publish. It was said that publication would be a misuse of private information. The application was heard by Calvert-Smith J, and was opposed. The judge granted the relief asked for (including that the Claimant be anonymised) and provided for a very short return day for a full hearing between the parties, 2 days later. The matter then came before me, on an application for the continuation of the injunction, which was opposed. After Mr Price had made submissions on behalf of the Claimant however (including, to the effect that the central information with which the action was concerned was false) Mr Spearman, on behalf of the Defendant asked the court to adjourn the matter part-heard, for 7 days to enable further investigations to be carried out. This application was not opposed, and I granted it. The investigations were on-going, and on the day before the adjourned hearing was due to take place, the Defendant asked again, for a further 7 day adjournment. This was not opposed, and again, I granted the application.
By the time of the next adjourned hearing date, the parties had agreed a consent order, subject to the court's approval in relation to the provisions concerning open justice, which provided, amongst other matters, for the continuation of the interim relief granted by Calvert-Smith J until trial or further order.
On behalf of the Claimant, Mr Price submits that following the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ntuli v Donald [2010] EWCA Civ 1276, the relevant question on anonymity which has to be answered is that posed in the judgment of Lord Roger in Home Secretary v AP (No 2) [2010] 1 WLR 1652 at [7]:
“…the court must ask itself 'whether there is a sufficient general public interest in publishing a report of the proceedings which identifies [AP] to justify any resulting curtailment of his right and his family's right to respect for their private and family life.' The court [in Re Guardian News & Media] emphasised that the answer will depend on the facts of the particular case.”
Mr Price emphasises that the Court of Appeal reiterated in Ntuli at [54] that “this is an essentially case-sensitive subject”. It follows therefore that reference to earlier or other cases is unlikely to be of significant assistance in answering the relevant question.
On the facts of this case, he submits it is clear that the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information that he is the person who brought these proceedings and obtained an injunction to protect his privacy. The Claimant is a well-known person. If the Claimant's identity became public it would lead to intrusive questions and speculation which would be extremely distressing for him and his family. The Claimant would be placed in a particularly invidious position because the central information with which this action is concerned is (on the Claimant's case) fictional. The Claimant would either have to remain silent when faced with questions and speculation, including questions from family and friends, which would lead to people...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CDE and FGH v MGN Ltd and LMN (Privacy: Interim Injunction)
...be transparent. Compared to that, the social utility or value to be attached to identification, as such, is relatively low: cf. XJA v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2010] EWHC 3174 (QB) at [15]. There may be cases in which it is possible to reveal the identity of one or more of the litigants in......
-
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Persons Unknown
...consent, substitute or add an alternative defendant, or direct that the claim and trial proceed in the absence of a third party ( XJA v News Group Newspapers [2010] EWHC 3174 (QB) [13]; Gray v UVW [2010] EWHC 2367 (QB) [37]; Terry [134]–[136]).” 92 In Kerner v WX [2015] EWHC 178 (QB), as......
- Practice Guidance (Interim Non-disclosure Orders)
-
Katherine Elizabeth Kerner (on her own behalf and in a representative capacity for Jack Robert Michael Kerner, a child) v (1) WX (2) YZ (Persons Unknown responsible for pursuing and/or taking photographs of the Claimant and her son at their home on 22 January 2015)
...an alternative defendant, or direct that the claim and trial proceed in the absence of a third party ( XJA v News Group Newspapers [2010] EWHC 3174 (QB) at [13]; Gray v UVW [2010] EWHC 2367 (QB) at [37]; Terry at [134] – [136]). " 7 This guidance relates to actions involving interim non-dis......