Anon 2 v XYZ

Anon 2 brought an action against XYZ, seeking damages for defamation. The defendant applied for, and was granted, an order that they could defend the action using a pseudonym. Anon 2 subsequently applied to set aside the suppression order, arguing that the open justice principle required the case to proceed with the parties' true identities. The matter came before the court to determine the validity of the suppression order.

The court considered the statutory provisions governing suppression orders, particularly sections 18 and 19 of the Supreme Court Act 1986. The court weighed the open justice principle against the defendant's right to protect their identity during the interlocutory stages of the proceedings. The court also considered the potential for prejudice to the defendant if their identity were to be disclosed at that stage of the litigation.

The court found that, while the open justice principle was an important consideration, it was not absolute. The court recognised that there were circumstances in which a party's anonymity could be protected during the interlocutory stages of a proceeding. The court held that the suppression order was valid, and the application to set it aside was dismissed. The court did not make any orders regarding the final orders of the case.