Case No. ZC19D00073

i)The correct starting point is privacy. These are highly personal proceedings and there should be no publication of any part of them. ii)Any publication will inevitably lead to identification. An anonymised and redacted judgment is not an option available in the present proceedings because identification would be inevitable by reason of H’s business interests which are widely known. iii)Whatever the nature of his business interests, H is not a public figure. He has never courted publicity and has always been a very private person. iv)The fact that The Telegraph has taken the lead in publishing details of the finances of others, particularly MPs thought to have abused expenses, is immaterial. They were public figures said to be taking advantage of the public purse. v)Although criticisms have been made in the judgment, to which I will return, there is no suggestion, as can be found in other cases where litigants have been identified, of the presentation of a perjured case or very serious litigation misconduct. In each case the extent of any wrongdoing has to be examined and there is no rule of general application. vi)There are genuine concerns for other members of the family who are not parties to the proceedings but may be affected by the judgment, in particular the parties’ daughter and, to a lesser extent, the wider Barclay family. vii)There are aspects of the judgment which are highly personal, in particular matters relating to H’s health.