- Anonymity for claimants refused as being unjustified and insufficiently evidenced (Various Claimants v Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Nicklin refused an application by the claimants for permission to bring their claim anonymously. It was fatal to the application that disclosure of the claimants’ identity would not have defeated the very purpose of their claim, with the truly confidential information in the proceedings being capable of management by other means (eg confidential schedules to documents). The judgment is a helpful summary of the principles applicable when seeking to derogate from the default, open justice principle. It is also instructive in its discussion of the evidential requirements for such applications together with the operation of the Injunction Applications Alert Service (the Service), by which the media may be notified of applications for reporting restrictions. Written by Matthew McGhee, barrister at Twenty Essex.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial