2009/12/2 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>:
On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote:
I see no problem with the court's or
WMF's actions. Slightly worried
about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from
being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why
that might have been attempted.
Um... that's not how I read it. I read it as the court considering
requiring no press coverage of the order at all - but deciding
against that. Nothing about preventing the WMF's name from being
released...
Mike
Section 10
# As the title to this judgment shows, I made orders giving anonymity
to the Applicants. One provision which was sought, but which I did not
grant, was an order giving anonymity to the Respondent.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html
The respondent is the WMF. I can understand the provision might be
sought but I'm glad it wasn't granted.
--
geni