AEL v Flight Centre (UK) Ltd
[2024] EAT 116
Denny Taylor & Ors. v David Evans & Ors.
24 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 935 (KB)
High Court
Some people sued the Labour Party over a report about antisemitism. Because they were getting online threats, the judge let them hide their names and addresses. The judge also decided who could sue who and whether a secret email should stay secret. It was a balancing act between keeping things open and protecting people from threats.
Key Facts
- •Following the Labour Party's 2019 election defeat, a report on antisemitism (the Report) was published, leading to claims from individuals named in the report.
- •Claimants alleged breaches of GDPR, misuse of private information, breach of confidence, and unlawful discrimination.
- •The Labour Party (represented by its General Secretary) claimed the report was leaked by third parties.
- •Three applications were before the court: claimants' anonymity application, third parties' unless order application, and defendant's privilege application.
Legal Principles
Open justice principle
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, R (Mohammed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65
Court's power to grant anonymity
CPR 39.2(1) and (4), CPR 16 PD para. 2.5, CPR 5.4C(4)
Principles for anonymity applications (summarized from JIH)
JIH v News Group [2011] EWCA Civ 42
Legal professional privilege
Goddard v Nationwide Building Society [1987] QB 670, Jinxin Inc. v Aser Media Pte Ltd [2022] EWHC 2856 (Comm), Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415, ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5, Brake v Guy [2022] EWCA Civ 235
Representative actions
Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] AC 426, Bonsor v Musicians’ Union [1956] AC 104
Outcomes
Anonymity granted for EZE and EHL (claimants 2 and 5)
EZE's adoption process and EHL's sensitive employment and the risk of further abuse justified the derogation from open justice. The risk of harm outweighed the principle of open justice.
Claimants permitted to withhold addresses
Risk of harm from extremist websites and antisemitic attacks justified non-disclosure.
Unless order application refused
Defendant's case was not unwinnable; however, amended pleadings are required clarifying the basis for Mr Evans bringing the claim.
Declaration that Ms Murphy's email is not privileged refused
Despite being on a Labour Party laptop, the circumstances of its discovery did not destroy its confidentiality. The recipient should have realized its confidential nature.