This Practice Note provides examples of the court’s approach to applications requesting the court to order that a hearing be held in private and/or for reporting restrictions. This Practice Note should be considered in conjunction with Practice Note: Private hearings and restricted reporting in civil proceedings. Case details and analysis Issues considered Getty Images (US) Inc v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) This liability judgment in the Intellectual Property dispute between Getty Images and Stability AI records that a prior confidentiality order had established a confidentiality regime at the request of the parties for the purposes of protecting confidential information disclosed in the proceedings, with the result that certain evidence on which the parties relied at trial was designated Confidential or Highly Confidential and that it had been necessary to sit in private for short periods during the cross-examination of witnesses in order to protect this confidentiality. Other than this, as much of the trial as possible was held in public in order to secure the proper administration

The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (ET Rules 2024), SI 2024/1155 set out the framework under which employment tribunals can order private hearings, impose restricted reporting orders, protect the identity of parties or witnesses, or make directions in relation to national security. Preliminary hearings (see Practice Note: Preliminary hearings in the employment tribunal) are usually conducted in private, whereas final hearings (see Practice Notes: Preparation for employment tribunal final hearing and Procedure at employment tribunal final hearing) are almost always public, ie any member of the public may come and observe the trial in the tribunal hearing room. There are however special rules allowing the employment tribunal, because it is necessary in the interests of justice, or in order to protect an individual's human rights, or for reasons of confidentiality, or for reasons relating to national security, to order that: • some or all of a hearing that would otherwise have been public should be held in private • the identity of a party or witness be kept secret

This Practice Note sets out the steps that the court will expect parties to take prior to issuing private law proceedings relating to children under the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), in accordance with the pre-application requirements contained in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 3, together with the Practice Directions, FPR 2010, PD 3A and FPR 2010, PD 12B. It includes guidance on the requirements for attendance at a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM). It also considers the provisions of the Pre-application Protocol: private law proceedings relating to children (the protocol), which is annexed to FPR 2010, PD 12B and outlines the steps the court will expect the parties to take in relation to non-court dispute resolution (NCDR), where this is safe and appropriate, prior to the commencement of any application for an order in private law children proceedings. With the aim of further encouraging the consideration of, and engagement with, NCDR, including after a case has proceeded to court, significant changes were made to FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955 that

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that is frequently used in the employment context to resolve disputes. For further information about the use of mediation in employment disputes, generally, see Practice Note: Mediation in employment—introduction. Mediation can take place in a wide variety of circumstances, both during employment and after employment has ended. A distinction can be made between: • workplace mediation, and • employment mediation Workplace mediation is used where there is an ongoing work relationship between the parties at the start of the mediation. The mediator will assist the parties in trying to resolve their dispute so that they can continue to work together going forward. The focus is on restoring the relationship rather than settling a legal dispute. For further information, see Practice Note: Workplace mediation. Employment mediation is used where a tribunal claim is either being considered, or has been submitted. The employment relationship may have already ended, but not necessarily so. The mediator will assist the parties in trying

Private necessity describes a situation where a person interferes with another’s land or property in order to protect their own interests (such as their person, goods or property) from imminent harm, for example mooring a boat on another’s land in a storm or entering land to escape danger. In common law across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, it operates as a limited defence to torts or delicts such as trespass or nuisance. It does not generally provide a complete justification: the defendant may avoid liability for the decision to interfere, but must usually compensate the owner for actual loss or damage caused. Private necessity is primarily a case law concept rather than a detailed statutory regime, and is closely related to, but distinct from, public necessity and statutory powers of entry. Courts assess: (i) the imminence and seriousness of the threatened harm, (ii) whether the defendant’s response was reasonable and proportionate, and (iii) whether less intrusive alternatives existed. Usage and principles are broadly consistent across the UK and Ireland, though Scots law frames the analysis within delict and may characterise the conduct under broader doctrines of justification and reasonableness.

A network based on leased lines or other facilities, which are used to provide electronic communications services within an organization or within a closed user group as a complement or a substitute to the public network.

The tort of interfering with the quiet enjoyment of rights over land belonging to another.

Private nuisance Relevance of private nuisance in modern law Notwithstanding the quite complex level of environmental regulation, private nuisance (along with other torts such as negligence and trespass) continues to play an important part in modern environmental law. This is unsurprising in a common law jurisdiction where the judiciary has a central role in the constitution. Also, some environmental issues fall outside the regulatory regimes. For instance, the statutory nuisance regime under Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) only covers those environmental nuisances listed in EPA 1990, s 79(1) but if the environmental harm has abated there could well remain a justifiable claim in damages for past nuisance which is not available under the statutory environmental protection systems. The tort of private nuisance is also important because recent legislation has, following earlier patterns of legislative reform, continued to adopt the meaning and definition of common law nuisance in for example the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSCA 2022) but also in the Anti-Social

What situations can give rise to a claim? Private nuisance is a ‘violation of real property rights’. It involves substantial interference with the claimant’s ordinary enjoyment of their land, often by noise or smell, or by encroachment or actual physical damage to their property. Nuisance may be caused by inaction or omission as well as by positive activity, and there is a central principle of ‘give and take, live and let live’. Interference with the enjoyment of an easement relating to the claimant’s land may also constitute a nuisance, the right to light being the most common type of claim in this category. Nuisance is sometimes broken down into the following categories, although they are merely examples under the broad umbrella of ‘violation of property rights’: • encroachment on a neighbour's land • direct physical injury to a neighbour's land • interference with a neighbour's quiet enjoyment of their land It is said that ‘the categories of nuisance are not closed’ and that ‘anything short of direct trespass…which materially interferes with the claimant’s enjoyment of rights

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 August 2015; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I investigation into Consultant Eye Surgeons Partnership (CESP) Limited, a membership organisation of private consultant ophthalmologists, in relation to alleged anti-competitive information exchange and pricing agreements (case CE/9784-13). The CMA issued its infringement decision on 05/08/2015. Latest developments On 5 August 2015, the CMA issued its infringement decision, imposing a fine of £382,500 on CESP. The fine was reduced from £500,000 as a result of: • CESP agreeing to settle with the CMA, meaning a streamlined administrative procedure could be adopted along with CESP's continued co-operation with the CMA (amounting to a 15% reduction), and •

The offer of securities to a small number of investors in a prearranged transaction

Memorandum produced by a private equity fund when seeking investors in respect of a private placement.