温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/aaa-v-rakoff
点击访问原文链接

AAA v Rakoff - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
AAA v Rakoff - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases AAA v Rakoff Reference: [2019] EWHC 2525 (QB)

Court: High Court (Queen's Bench Division)

Judge: Nicklin J

Date of judgment: 30 Sep 2019 Summary: Injunction - Privacy – Anonymity - Expedition

Download: Download this judgment

Appearances: Jane Phillips (Defendant) 

Instructing Solicitors: DWF Law LLP (instructed for 3d and 4th defendants)

Facts The first nine Claimants were all dancers at the Tenth and Eleventh Claimants’ lap dancing clubs in Sheffield and London (“Spearmint Rhino”).

As part of a covert investigation into possible breaches of licence conditions at the clubs, the First and Second Defendants (“Not Buying It”) instructed the Third and Fourth Defendants (the Private Investigators) to record video footage (“the Footage”).

The Cs commenced proceedings in relation to the Footage, seeking an interim injunction as to its use, anonymity of the first nine Cs and an expedited trial.

Following undertakings given by the First and Second Defendants in relation to the use they could make of the Footage, the only remaining live issues were whether the first nine Claimants should be granted anonymity and whether there should be an order for an expedited trial.

Issue 1.      Whether the first nine Claimants should be granted anonymity

2.      Whether an expedited trial should be ordered

Held Both applications were refused.

Anonymity: The Court found the Cs’ position on anonymity difficult to understand as they sought only an order (pursuant to Part 16) permitting them to issue the Claim Form anonymising their names (and thereafter for initials to be used in place of their names in the proceedings) but did not seek an order that would prohibit their real names being published or being identified as claimants in the proceedings. The Court held that it should not artificially place obstacles in the way of reporting of the case by adopting measures that simply make it more difficult for the media to report information upon which the Court has placed no restriction [41]. The Claimants’ concerns were premature: the Court could adopt appropriate measures to protect the Claimants’ privacy rights at trial and the prospect of potential future issues did not justify an anonymity order at this stage [42].

Expedited Trial: The Court refused the application for an expedited trial. There was no particular urgency that justified an order for expedition in this case: no sealed claim form had been served, and the undertakings agreed were a sufficient interim protection. Risks of delay identified by the Claimants were fanciful, and the effect on other court users would have been considerable [43].

Comment The Judgment helpfully sets out the well-known open justice principles and how they intersect with CPR Part 16 applications to withhold the name of a Claimant from inclusion in the Claim Form.  It highlights how important it is, in any application for anonymity, to be clear (1) about the reasons for seeking such an order; and (2) identifying the precise scope of the order sought.

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* NameThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录