QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
SMO (a child) by their litigation friend, Anne Longfield [acting as a representative claimant pursuant to CPR 19.6] |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
(1) TIKTOK INC. (2) TIKTOK INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (3) TIKTOK TECHNOLOGY LIMITED (4) BYTEDANCE LTD (5) BEIJING BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD (6) MUSICAL.LY |
Defendants |
____________________
The Defendants were not present or represented
Hearing date: 30 December 2020
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down by the judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to BAILII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be as shown opposite: 30/12/2020
Mr Justice Warby:
"Further, and crucially, if these intended proceedings are issued prior to 1 January 2021, any judgment given is enforceable in Member States without further procedures. If the proceedings are issued from 1 January 2021 onwards, local laws of each Member State will apply which could severely impact and/or prejudice to Claimant's ability to enforce."
(1) The only information provided about the claimant was their age. Permission to issue proceedings anonymously is one thing. A right to bring a claim on behalf of a person whose identity is known but kept secret from the Court has never yet been recognised.
(2) Reliance was placed on the practice in relation to settlements affecting, where anonymity is the norm (JX MX (A Child) v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96); but that is an exception to the general rule of open justice, which did not seem to me analogous to this case.
(3) The evidence seeking to justify anonymity for this particular claimant was in very general terms, saying little more than that the attention the case itself was likely to attract would "include attention directed toward the claimant".
(4) I could see no need to hear the application in private; as no identifying material was being put before the Court, it should be easy to ensure that no such material was made public during the hearing.
(5) I could not see the justification for a "blanket" order sealing the file which was sought by the application notice. If the application succeeds, the court file can be anonymised and third-party access to the "open" parts of the file could not be harmful.
"in all cases where the public has been excluded with admitted propriety the underlying principle . . . is that the administration of justice would be rendered impracticable by their presence, whether because the case could not be effectively tried, or the parties entitled to justice would be reasonably deterred from seeking it at the hands of the court."
"The court must order that the identity of any party or witness shall not be disclosed if, and only if, it considers non-disclosure necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of that party or witness."
"whether there is sufficient general public interest in publishing a report of the proceedings which identifies [the Applicant] to justify any resulting curtailment of his right and his family's right to respect for their private and family life."