Key Facts
- •The Claimant, an openly gay man active in his religious community, is being blackmailed and harassed by Persons Unknown since July 2023.
- •The Defendants threaten to disclose intimate and explicit material about the Claimant to his community and the public.
- •A limited disclosure was made on the Claimant's religious community's Facebook page and promptly removed.
- •The Claimant applied for an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from disclosing his private information and further harassing him.
- •The application was heard in private due to the sensitive nature of the information and the risk of further dissemination if the Defendants were notified.
- •The application was made without notice to the Defendants due to the risk of 'tipping off' and the urgency of the situation.
Legal Principles
Open justice principle
Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders [2012] 1 WLR 1003
Derogations from open justice are justified in exceptional circumstances to secure the proper administration of justice (CPR 39.2(3)(a), (c), (g))
CPR 39.2
Interim remedies can be granted without notice if there are good reasons (CPR 25.3(a))
CPR 25.3
Secrecy is essential when notifying respondents is not possible (CPR PD 25A, para. 4.3(3))
CPR PD 25A
Additional requirements apply under the HRA s.12(2) if relief might affect freedom of expression and the respondent is not present or represented.
Human Rights Act 1998
Injunctions affecting freedom of expression require the applicant to be likely to succeed at trial (HRA s.12(3))
Human Rights Act 1998
Misuse of private information and harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
American Cyanamid test for interim injunctions
American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396
Alternative service permitted under CPR 6.15(1)
CPR 6.15
Service out of the jurisdiction permitted under CPR 6.36, 6.38 and PD 6B
CPR 6.36, 6.38 and PD 6B
Outcomes
Interim injunction granted
To restrain the Defendants from disclosing the Claimant's private information and harassing him. The court found the Claimant was likely to succeed at trial and that damages would be inadequate.
Hearing held in private
Publicity would defeat the object of the hearing and damage confidentiality (CPR 39.2(3)(a), (c), (g)).
Application heard without notice
To prevent the Defendants from disseminating the private information before the hearing. The court found compelling reasons not to notify the Defendants (HRA s.12(2)(b)).
Anonymity granted for the Claimant and reporting restrictions imposed
To protect the Claimant from further harm and to prevent the court from encouraging blackmailers and deterring victims.
Order for alternative service by WhatsApp
This is the only current method of communication with the Defendants and ensures prompt service.
Permission granted for service out of the jurisdiction
Evidence suggests the Defendants may be based abroad.