Giving judgment for C and issuing a permanent injunction:
1) The hearing proceeded in the absence of the Ds pursuant to the discretion provided by CPR 23.11. It was clear that the Ds had been properly served and were fully aware of proceedings and the order of Slade J, as well being properly served with the instant application.
The conditions for judgment in default had been satisfied, the amended claim form and particulars of claim had been deemed served, and the last day for service of acknowledgement of service had passed.
Since the amending of the Particulars of Claim on 15 August 2014 six additional websites had emerged, each being clearly related to the websites identified in the amended claim form and the amended Particulars of Claim, having similar names and similar or identical material. The Cs wished to obtain an order which encompassed the later websites. While it was not appropriate for the court to make an order going wider than the claim form and statement of case being considered when the order was made, it would be unjust if a defendant could stymie the court’s powers and process by replicating previous conduct under a different name. Leave was therefore given to re-amend the amended Particulars to incorporate the later websites. It was ordered that further service be dispensed with before the making of the main order to which the judgment related. Frustrating the court’s process by publishing on additional websites would have been an injustice to C, and there would have been no injustice to the Ds in doing so.
2) The evidence showed a clear course of deliberate and unlawful harassment of C and the protected parties. It was highly probable to the point of virtual certainty that unless restrained the Ds would continue to harass C as they had done before and since Slade J’s order. The prejudice and inconvenience to C and the protected parties was high. The order sought was necessary and proportionate to protect the C from further harassment.
The Judge had given particular attention to the effect of the proposed order upon the Ds’ right to freedom of expression. Since the Ds had chosen not to take their opportunity to assert it by serving any response to the claim or application, there would be final judgment. C was entitled to a permanent injunction to vindicate the right proved against each D, as indicated by Tugendhat J in ZAM v CFW  EWHC 662 (QB).
The anonymity order granted by Slade J was continued as this was necessary to prevent identification of C and the protected parties.