That relief should not be granted under CPR 3.9 and the action would remain struck out:
(1)If not granted relief it would be open to C to start a new action against NGN, therefore refusal to grant relief would not materially interfere with C’s Article 6 or Article 8 rights.
(2) As NGN say they are neither in a position to, nor intend to, publish further information about the relationship between C and Ms Thomas a continuance would not be a serious interference with NGN’s Article 10 rights.
(3) As presently pleaded the claim for damages could not be said to give rise to any significant award, if any award at all. The article complained of was anonymised and no particulars of how the article could be understood to refer to C are pleaded.
(4) The claim for an injunction has been overtaken by events.
(5) C had been party to two serious breaches – one of the rules of court and the other of an order of the court – in failing to apply to fix a trial date and failing to inform NGN and third parties of the lifting of anonymity.
Tugendhat J also made some clear and generally applicable points regarding the conduct of litigation in such cases:
(1) Failure to comply with Orders of the court and the CPR, to fully inform the court in a timely fashion of all relevant matters including procedural matters, or to inform affected parties where anonymity is lifted are serious breaches.
(2) Parties must consider the Article 10 rights of third parties in actions for breach of confidence and privacy, so as to progress the case in a timely manner and interfere with those Article 10 rights for as short a time as possible. Indefinite extensions should not be agreed between the parties.
(3) When considering granting an extension of time, the court must be convinced that the interference with third parties’ Article 10 rights is necessary and proportionate.
(4) Parties should be aware that judges will, and are required to, give reasons public for their interlocutory decisions and should consider what case and evidence they put in – including whether to put in submissions and evidence at all – this light. If a party puts no case before the judge, the interlocutory judgment cannot reflect that party’s side of the story.