Privacy Of Defendant

[tempor]

My inquiry is about the protection of defendant's privacy in civil litigation process.

I understand that any Complaint in pleadings which plaintiff files can be accessed by public.
How can the defendant named in the complaint protect their privacy at this stage?

Is there anything that the plaintiff should do / prove before filing the complaint that publicizes the defendant's name?

Or, does the defendant have no legal right to prevent his name from publicizing in the complaint stage?

[Peter Pedant]

Justice in the UK is public - and so the Defendant's name is made public.

The details of the case are not usually in hte public domain in a civil case - but if you turn up on the day, you may be allowed into court,

if it is a criminal case, you have a right to go in

and finally the plaintiff should write to he defendant saying what his claim is and that he will go to court if it is not settled.

Clearly I am not talking about sex cases where the victim has anonymity and the defendant does not

[tempor]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your prompt answer.

What I'm specifically referring here is a fraudulent Ponzi scheme clawback case.
The court appointed receiver filed reverse class action to hundreds of so called net-winners (who withdrew more money than invested from the Ponzi scheme) to ask them to return their alleged ill-gotten profit.
The receiver publicize the list of the net winners (name & address) in their web-site at the same time - something like Name & Shame approach.

I feel something is not right from privacy protection perspective.
Can the receiver sue & publicize the name of the defendants legally without any particular notice / confirmation to each net winners individually?

If the receiver made wrong calculation and some defendants were not real net winners, then it would be a defamation.

Would appreciate your insight.

[Peter Pedant]

I can easily see that this is not the UK legal system (is it ?)

Madoff, the receiver has recovered an incredible amount considering peope were told to they would receive one per cent.

When someone goes bankrupt ( in the UK) I am sure you tell everyone - so that the creditors can queue up for what's left. So clearly confidentiality is limited.

Saying someone is being investigated when they arent - is libellous and there is a case on this (UK) for a company to recover losses suffered from the share price dipping.

So I have to say from first principles - I am not sure.

I have to say I dont feel THAT sorry for Madoff investors who er didnt lose anything....they sort of dont really need sympathy.


In the UK - if I had profited from a Ponzi scheme, would I expect the authorities to try to claw back my profits ?
Yes I would actually - on the grounds that they are profits from crime

Would I expect to be compensated for lost opportunity costs ( I cd have chosen Microsoft but didnt ) No I wouldnt

sorry not be more positive

[tempor]

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your thoughts.

Yes, correct the case I'm quoting here is the one happening in the US, but I believe there must be a lot of commonality between the UK & US legal system.

Your comment of "Saying someone is being investigated when they arent - is libellous and there is a case on this (UK) for a company to recover losses suffered from the share price dipping. " interests me,
- could you kindly advise the name of legislation specifying this?
- is there any clause that can apply not only to a company but also to individuals?

Would appreciate your assistance.

[Peter Pedant]

Hi Tempor

Both the US and UK are common law systems and so things tend to go the same way ( the big difference in criminal law is Miranda )

I will see what I can find - it was in the section of economic torts which is case law based in the UK and kicks off with Hedley Burne v Heller 1964

[Peter Pedant]

this looks like a goo d place to start
http://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/Liability%20for%20Statements.pdf

[tempor]

Peter,

Thank you for all the answers, quite informative.