Key Facts
- •Josephine Hayes, a barrister and Liberal Democrat member, sought disclosure of identities of anonymous complainants to the Liberal Democrats and Twitter users who harassed her.
- •Hayes believed a coordinated campaign targeted her after she published a blog questioning the authenticity of a pro-Brexit activist's online persona, "Monica Andersson."
- •She brought a claim against several named and unnamed defendants, including Stephen Dudhill, for malicious falsehood, conspiracy, and harassment.
- •Hayes applied for Norwich Pharmacal orders against the Liberal Democrats and Dudhill to obtain the identities of the anonymous individuals.
- •Master McCloud dismissed the application, and Hayes appealed.
Legal Principles
Norwich Pharmacal Order
Norwich Pharmacal Co v Commissioner of Customs and Excise [1974] AC 133
Malicious Falsehood
Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524
Conspiracy
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 14) [2018] UKSC 19
Harassment
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Article 6 ECHR (Right to a fair trial)
European Convention on Human Rights
Article 10 ECHR (Freedom of expression)
European Convention on Human Rights
Proportionality
In re S (a child) [2004] UKHL 47
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Hayes failed to establish a good arguable claim for malicious falsehood, conspiracy, or harassment to justify a Norwich Pharmacal order. The court found it was premature to order disclosure before the claim was served and particulars of claim filed. The judge’s decision was a case management decision within her discretion.