Judge defends role in financier's secret libel suit

Judge defends role in financier's secret libel suit

Justice Tugendhat says he was right to make all the parties anonymous in case pitting 'Zam' against his sister-in-law



The judge who has allowed a financier to bring a secret libel suit against his own sister-in-law defended his decision to make all the parties anonymous on Wednesday, in the wake of the uproar over superinjunctions and the outing of footballer Ryan Giggs in defiance of court orders.

Mr Justice Tugendhat, at a high court hearing in London where the financier was only allowed to be referred to as Zam, said that although his grant of anonymity in a case of libel was "unusual", it was not the first time such a thing had occurred. He said there had been another occasion when it had happened – in a 1997 case known as "P versus T".

He stressed that the sister-in-law and her husband were not only accused of circulating libellously untrue stories but also of harassment of the wealthy financier. In a previous judgment, the judge referred to suggestions of blackmail, but police have not apparently been involved in the civil case. The family are engaged in a dispute over shares in a £100m offshore trust fund.

The hearing took place following an application by Zam's lawyers to have his sister-in-law, who lives in England, jailed for contempt of court, because full details of the case and Zam's name have been posted on the internet, and she was allegedly linked to the postings.

The prospect of her imprisonment receded on Wednesday when Richard Spearman QC, counsel for the financier, told the court that an agreeement had now been reached with the woman.

Her husband, who also cannot be named under the judge's order, lives in Rome, along with business associates, where he is outside the court's jurisidiction and apparently cannot be stopped from making internet postings. The court was told legal moves against him had now also been postponed.

Last week, a committee of lawyers, headed by Lord Neuberger, master of the rolls, said that people who went to court to gain injunctions should only be granted anonymity where it was "strictly necessary".

Previously, however, lawyers for Zam had successfully claimed anonymity for their client on the more limited grounds that it would be unfair for him and his family to suffer speculation about the circumstances that had led them to make use of the powers of the high court.

Comment: Original story and secret order here.