Search results
116 results ordered by
A mass outbreak of anonymity: CDE and FGH v MGN and LMN
It is not unusual for claimants in privacy cases to be anonymised. It is less common for defendants and distinctly unusual for non-parties.
Read more7/7 footage withheld from public to protect privacy of victims and their families
The Coroner conducting the inquest into the terror attacks in London on 7 July 2005 has ordered that certain footage shown in court of the aftermath of the 7/7 attacks should not be released to the media.
Read moreAnonymity of egg and sperm donors
A survey by Manchester Fertility Services highlights issues of privacy concerning egg and sperm donation.
Read moreApplications for privacy injunctions – when notice need not be given
In DFT v TFD [2010] EWHC 2335 (QB) Sharp J made an order to restrain publication of allegedly private and confidential information without notice having been given to either the respondent or the media.
Read moreAnonymisation of parties in matrimonial proceedings
The Court of Appeal has lifted an order by a family court judge which directed that the parties to the proceedings should be anonymised.
Read moreCAT Collective Proceedings - Summer 2024 update
Developments in the UK’s competition collective proceedings regime continue apace with new claims recently issued in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
Read moreThe CAT's new approach: I can't afford a carriage (dispute)
Since the collective proceedings regime in the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) kicked off, a number of carriage disputes have arisen. So-called 'carriage disputes' arise when there are two or more competing proposed class representatives (PCRs) seeking certification (and therefore 'carriage') of overlapping class actions.
Read moreFull and frank disclosure means more than just putting relevant matters in evidence – a new year warning in UKIP v Braine & Others
New year, new reminder of the obligation to make full and frank disclosure in without notice applications, this time in the context of a falling out within the UKIP party. The obligation can only be satisfied by drawing the court's attention to legal or factual matters which could undermine the applicant's own application; it is not enough to simply put relevant matters in evidence before the court (UKIP v Braine & Others). Injunction, confidential, publication and non-disclosure.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here