![[2025] UKUT 029 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
In the light of the parties’ positions, we have considered whether it is appropriate to continue the Rule 14 orders made by the Registrar and to extend them as requested by the parties. We bear in min
In the light of the parties’ positions, we have considered whether it is appropriate to continue the Rule 14 orders made by the Registrar and to extend them as requested by the parties. We bear in mind that we should not order a restriction on publication simply because both parties seek it: see X v Z Ltd [1998] ICR 43, CA.
In this case, we were satisfied that the private interests of the appellant, and also other individuals (staff and children) named in the papers, were such that it was appropriate to protect those interests by anonymising them at the hearing and in this judgment pursuant to a Rule 14 Order. Our reasons for so concluding are as follows.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- DBS’s decision
- Legal framework
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal
- The appellant’s evidence at this hearing
- Submissions
- Our decision on the appeal
- Mistake of law? - Proportionality
- Conclusion
- Tribunal Member Stuart-Cole
- In the light of the parties’ positions, we have considered whether it is appropriate to continue the Rule 14 orders made by the Registrar and to extend them as requested by the parties. We bear in min
- Open justice means that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 , [2020] AC 629 the Supreme Court explained the purpose
- Numerous cases have emphasised the link between open justice and the right under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights to freedom of expression and have provided guidance on the nature
- An order anonymising someone who would otherwise be named in court proceedings is an interference with the principle of open justice. As Lord Reed JSC described in A v BBC [2015] AC 588 at [23]: “It i
- Ordinarily, it is said that it is not unreasonable to regard a person who brings proceedings as having accepted the normal incidences of their public nature, including the potential embarrassment and
- In this particular jurisdiction, the considerations are somewhat different to those in the authorities we have mentioned, because this is an appeal in relation to the appellant’s inclusion on the barr
- Conclusions