On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:53, geni wrote:
2009/12/2 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
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.
Ah; I see. I should have read the judgement closer. ;-)
(I don't believe what I read in the papers if there's a primary source... ;-) )
Mike