Dec 152010
 
 December 15, 2010  Posted by  Court, Non-U.S.

Inforrm’s Blog discusses a case where the court may have been too lenient in granting anonymity in a case stemming from a commercial contractual dispute:

On 14 December 2010 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the case of Pink Floyd Music Limited v EMI Records ([2010] EWCA Civ 1429) – a contractual dispute concerning downloading of music to iTunes.  For our purposes, the interest of the case lies in Lord Neuberger’s general comments about private hearings and anonymity in the Court of Appeal.

The case was originally listed in private be heard in private under the case name “P v E”.  It appeared that the only reason was the alleged commercial sensitivity of the precise percentage figure in clause 9(d) of the 1999 Agreement.  The Court dealt with this by referring to the percentage in Court and in the judgments as “XX” and making an appropriate reporting restriction order (see [66]).

Lord Neuberger went on to say that

it was wrong in principle that this appeal was not properly listed. It was also inconvenient in practice: … . More importantly, unless steps are taken to ensure that this does not happen again, such inappropriate listing and preparation could lead to real injustice in another appeal” [65].

He went on to say that the case provided a good opportunity for the court to make it clear that a private hearing or party anonymisation will be granted in the Court of Appeal

only if, and only to the extent that, a member of the Court is satisfied that it is necessary for the proper administration of justice” [66]

Read more on Inforrm’s Blog.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.