GovData Limited v Indeed UK Operations Limited
[2024] EWHC 39 (Comm)
Josephine Mary Hayes v The Liberal Democrats & Anor
11 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3166 (KB)
High Court
A barrister claimed she was harassed online and anonymously. She wanted a court order to reveal the harassers' identities. The court said she hadn't proven she was harassed enough to get that order yet. It's better to wait until her case is more developed before deciding if she needs to know the harassers' identities.
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.