Tian v Refinitiv Ltd: Open Justice Will Prevail Over Reputational Concerns

On 11 June 2026, DHCJ Mr Vassall-Adams KC delivered judgment in Tian v Refinitiv Ltd, addressing the claimant’s applications for a private hearing, anonymity, restrictions on public access to the court’s file, and measures to prevent the risk of “jigsaw identification”. The underlying proceedings concerned an application for Norwich Pharmacal relief, to identify the person who was responsible for creating and updating an entry on the World-Check database of politically exposed and “high risk” individuals, in connection with the claimant.

The Court dismissed the claimant’s substantive privacy applications though it permitted his home address to be redacted on documents made available from the court file.

The judgment is a useful reaffirmation that the starting point for all privacy applications is the open justice principle. The Court emphasised that anonymity and private hearings are exceptions to the general rule that hearings are held in open court to which the public and media have access, and that parties to legal proceedings should ordinarily be identified.

A central feature of the claimant’s case in relation to anonymity was the alleged risk to his safety, and the protection of his reputation because of the subject matter of the proceedings and his inclusion on the World-Check database.

Rejecting the first contention, the Judge noted that it was not enough for a party seeking anonymity to show they are fearful; they must show that those fears are objectively well-founded and that identification in the proceedings is likely to lead to those risks materialising.

Rejecting the second contention, the Judge observed that, while Article 8 of the ECHR protects reputation as well as privacy, the right to a fair and public hearing, and freedom of expression will usually prevail over any reputational concerns.

“Article 8 does protect a person’s reputation as well as their privacy interests. However, in the context of court proceedings, Article 8 reputational interests are not any kind of trump card. Although each case must be decided on its own facts, in the court reporting context open justice, the right to a fair and public hearing (Article 6) and freedom of expression (Article 10) usually prevail when balanced against Article 8 reputational rights: Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 819; [2013] 1 WLR 2993. Were it otherwise, the open justice principle would swiftly be undermined because most court proceedings involve potential reputational harm for either parties or witnesses.” [13]

The judgment contains a useful reminder that anonymity is not merely a matter between the parties. While the defendant opposed the application for a private hearing, it was neutral on the question of anonymity. However, the Court held that this was irrelevant because anonymity engages the public interest in open justice and affects the media’s Article 10 rights, which include the ability to report on cases in a way that is likely to engage the interest of their readers, naming the claimant as part of any story.

In balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights, the Court also considered the extent of information already in the public domain. The allegations underpinning the World-Check entry were already publicly known through earlier court proceedings and extensive media coverage. The Court held that the public was entitled to draw links between previous reporting and the present legal challenge, and that the media was entitled to report the current proceedings in a way that identified the claimant. The balance of rights favoured open justice and freedom of expression.

Tian v Refinitiv Ltd reinforces the courts’ consistently high threshold for derogations from the open justice principle. Reputational harm will almost never be enough to justify derogations from the open justice principle.

*This information is for guidance purposes only and does not constitute, nor should be regarded as, a substitute for taking legal advice that is tailored to your circumstances.

If you would like any further information or advice on these issues, please contact a member of the Media, Communication & Reputation team.