On 11 June 2026, Mr Vassall-Adams KC, acting as a Deputy High Court Judge, handed down judgment in respect of the Claimant’s application for a private hearing, anonymity and restrictions on access to the court file, and the Defendant’s application challenging jurisdiction under CPR Part 11.
The underlying claim was for Norwich Pharmacal relief concerning an entry on Refinitiv Ltd’s database, World-Check, that relates to the Claimant. The Claimant sought disclosure of the identity of the person/s responsible for the creation and update of his World-Check database entry.
The Claimant’s application was dismissed, save that an order was made for his home address to be redacted from any documents obtained from the court file. Of note, in respect of the anonymity application, Mr Vassall-Adams KC observed in his judgment at [13]:
“Article 8 does protect a person’s reputation as well as their privacy interests. However, in the context of court proceedings, Article 8 reputational interests are not any kind of trump card. Although each case must be decided on its own facts, in the court reporting context open justice, the right to a fair and public hearing (Article 6) and freedom of expression (Article 10) usually prevail when balanced against Article 8 reputational rights: Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 819; [2013] 1 WLR 2993. Were it otherwise, the open justice principle would swiftly be undermined because most court proceedings involve potential reputational harm for either parties or witnesses.”
The Defendant’s application succeeded on the basis that the claim form had not been served within the 4-month period prescribed by CPR r. 7.5 or validly at all, and the Claimant was unable to remedy his position through reliance on CPR rs. 6.15, 6.16 or 7.6 ([41] – [54] Jmt).
Katya Pereira acted for the Defendant, instructed by RPC LLP.
The judgment can be found here.
