Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 1786 (QB)
Case No: HQ12X02313
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 27/06/12

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	TKA and others	Claimant	
	- and -		
	XKA and others	Defendant	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Victoria Jolliffe (instructed by Paul Robinson Solicitors LLP) for the Claimants
Shomik Datta (instructed by BTMK Solicitors) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 22 June 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

.............................

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT

Mr Justice Tugendhat : 

1.	The parties to this action are the members of two families who formerly lived as near neighbours. They include on each side both the parents and the young children. 
2.	The claim arises out of an incident involving two young children, one from each family. This incident gave rise to actions by the Defendants, or one or more of them, which the Claimants alleged amounted to harassment of themselves and their children, and misuse of the private information of their children. The claim was primarily for injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act, to which was added associated claims for injunctions to restrain disclosure of information relating to the young children.
3.	On 8 June I granted injunctions on an application made without notice to the Defendants. I did so on the grounds that there was evidence of unreasonable conduct on the part of the Defendants, such that if notice were given there appeared to be a real risk that that might defeat the purpose for which the proceedings were brought. The derogations from open justice, including a hearing in private and anonymity for the parties, were necessary to protect the interests of the children, and because publicity would have defeated the purpose of the proceedings.
4.	22 June 2012 was the return date. The parties agreed a final settlement of their differences which was set out in an order I made that day. The order also recorded that both sides gave undertakings to the court. I approved this settlement under CPR Part 21, in so far as it related to the children. There was no evidence or suggestion that there might be any public interest in the further disclosure of the information the subject of this action.