PPT v Independent Television News Ltd: High Court keeps claimant anonymous but names media defendants

The High Court has ruled that a claimant seeking to stop two media organisations publishing allegations about him will remain anonymous, but that the defendants, Independent Television News Limited and Guardian News & Media Limited, must be named.

In PPT v Independent Television News Ltd [2026] EWHC 2560 (KB), Nicklin J gave a public judgement on applications to depart from open justice, heard in private on 5 October 2026. It does not decide the merits.

The claim

The defendants propose to publish the results of journalistic investigations into allegations about the claimant's conduct, which he broadly denies. He seeks a final injunction on the basis that publication would expose him to a real and immediate risk of serious harm or death, relying on psychiatric evidence and Articles 2, 3 and, if necessary, 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The defendants dispute that the requirements for a final injunction are met and rely on Article 10 and the public interest. The judge said the extent of the risk and whether it can be mitigated are for trial.

Open justice

Nicklin J restated that open justice carries very substantial weight, with a clear presumption in its favour, citing A v BBC, JIH v News Group Newspapers and PMC v Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. The party seeking a derogation must show by clear and cogent evidence that it is strictly necessary, and each derogation must be justified separately. Anonymity for one party does not imply anonymity for another. Neither Article 8 nor Article 10 has automatic precedence.

Anonymity for the claimant and defendants

The judge held that withholding the claimant's identity was strictly necessary. The case involves highly sensitive medical evidence and an asserted risk of grave harm, and identification would connect him with the proposed publications and risk undermining the determination of his claim. Anonymity also allows more information about the case to be published than would otherwise be possible. Although unopposed, the question required judicial determination. The order prohibits publication of his identity or of anything likely, directly or indirectly, to identify him.

The claimant also sought anonymity for the defendants, arguing that naming them would weaken his own protection. He relied on Article 8 alone. Nicklin J accepted that anonymity for the defendants would add some protection, but said that was not the test. The claimant had to show by clear and cogent evidence that the existing measures were insufficient and that further derogation was strictly necessary and proportionate. He had not done so.

Anonymising media defendants was a serious step, the judge said, particularly because their journalistic processes and decision-making may form part of the evidence at trial. It would probably also require shielding journalists, editors and other witnesses whose identities would reveal their employers, and could force parts of the trial to be conducted in an abstract or artificial form, or in private. The limited extra protection did not justify that.

The claim has been expedited, with trial listed for 27 and 28 October 2026 and a pre-trial review on 16 October. The trial will start from a presumption of public hearing. Any party seeking privacy for part of it must identify the evidence, the harm, why existing restrictions are insufficient and why a less restrictive measure would not do.

Sara Mansoori KC, instructed by Russells, appeared for the claimant. Gavin Millar KC and Ben Silverstone, instructed by Wiggin LLP, appeared for the defendants.