YSA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 74 (IAC)
YSA v Associated Newspapers Ltd
14 February 2023
[2023] UKUT 75 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
Someone sued a newspaper for breaking a court order to keep their name secret. The court said the lawsuit was badly written and didn't prove the newspaper broke the rules, so they threw it out.
Key Facts
- •YSA applied to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to bring contempt proceedings against Associated Newspapers Ltd for repeated breaches of anonymity orders.
- •The anonymity orders were made by the UT and the First-tier Tribunal in previous and ongoing proceedings relating to YSA's immigration case.
- •Associated Newspapers Ltd published several articles containing information that allegedly identified YSA, breaching the anonymity orders.
- •The application was made separately from YSA's ongoing appeal.
- •The Attorney General did not support the application.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal has the contempt powers of the High Court under s 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s. 25
In the absence of specific Tribunal Procedure Rules, contempt applications should follow the practices and safeguards of CPR Part 81.
CPR Part 81
Permission is required for contempt applications not made 'in existing proceedings'.
CPR 81.3(5)(a)
Disobedience of a court order is a contempt of court, interfering with the due administration of justice.
Johnson v Grant [1923] SC 789
A private party bringing a contempt application needs to demonstrate a strong prima facie case and that the public interest requires permission.
Ocado Group plc v McKeeve [2021] EWCA Civ 145
Outcomes
The application regarding breaches of the UT anonymity orders was rejected.
The application was defective, failing to meet the requirements of CPR Part 81, including lack of statement of truth, insufficient detail on which parts of articles breached the orders, and a late attempt to amend the application.
The application regarding breaches of the First-tier Tribunal anonymity order was also rejected.
While permission wasn't required as it related to 'existing proceedings', the application was still defective for the same reasons as the UT order breaches.