![]() Provides that if the Claim Form does not show a full address, including postcode, “theĬlaim Form will be issued but will be retained by the court and will not be served until Of each Claimant to be stated in the Claim Form. CPR 16.2 and Part 16 PD §§2.2 and 2.6 require the address and name Hearing on 30 July 2019 that the Claimants had not been able to obtain a sealed copy of It was accompanied by Particulars of Claim dated 3 July 2019. An unsealed copy of the Claim Form was provided to the Court at the hearing on 11 JulyĢ019. The judge commented on the difficulties that had arisen when the application was first heard in July 2019. In this particular application the dangers sought an order under CPR 16 that their names should be anonymised. The defendants had arranged for video footage to be taken within the clubs. The First Defendant was the Chief Executive of the second defendant “Not Buying It” which campaigns against sexual entertainment venues. They brought proceedings seeking to restrain the defendant from using footage it had obtained within the clubs. Nine of the claimants were dancers and a club known as Spearmint Rhino (the 10th Claimant). If there is not, the Court should not artificially place obstacles in the way of reporting of the case by adopting measures that simply make it more difficult for the media to report information upon which the Court has placed no restriction.” THE CASE “Either there is a justification for withholding the Claimants’ names from the public in these proceedings or there is not. The case raises issues in relation to service of the claim form, anonymity orders and a (refused) application for an expedited trial. ![]() This issue arose today in a surprising context in AAA -v- Rakoff EWHC 2525 (QB). I have been meaning to write more about anonymity and civil litigation, in particular orders made under CPR 16.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |