Article summary
Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court held that a claimant, who had sought an interim and final anonymity order in respect of their claim, could not do so. This was (in part) due to the claimant's prior engagement with journalists which had led to articles about the claimant's condition, the subject of the substantive proceedings, previously being published and being publicly available online. The court explored the balancing exercise that must be undertaken when exercising their discretion to grant an anonymity order in respect of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), rights to a private and family life, and Article 10 ECHR rights to freedom of expression. It held that it was for a claimant to persuade the court that it should depart from the standard position that court proceedings should be public and so promote access to justice in favour of granting...
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial