Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 916 (KB)
Case No: KB-2025-000910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 14/04/2025
Before :
DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
HXZ Claimant
- and –
NMX Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sara Mansoori KC and Kirsten Sjøvoll (instructed by Villars Legal) for the Claimant
The Defendant appeared in person
Hearing date: 3 April 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 14 April 2025 by circulation to the
parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC
Approved Judgment HXZ v NMZ
Aidan Eardley KC:
Introduction
1. At a return date hearing on 3 April 2025 I continued until trial the interim injunction
granted by Mr Justice Ritchie on 13 March 2025 and made other orders. These are my
reasons. In order to keep them to a reasonable length, I gratefully adopt passages from
the public judgment of Ritchie J [2025] EWHC 697 (KB) where appropriate. I have
also produced a private version of this judgment, containing detail that could not be
included in a public judgment without undermining the purpose of the injunction.
2. The Claimant was represented by Sara Mansoori KC and Kirsten Sjøvoll. The
Defendant represents herself. I was aware of the inequality of arms and indeed, based
on the evidence the Defendant submitted concerning her medical conditions and life
experiences, I regard her as a vulnerable party within the meaning of CPR PD 1A. I
sought to conduct the hearing in a way that reflected this assessment.
3. The issues I had to determine were as follows:
(1) Should the return date hearing be in private and should anonymity be preserved?
(2) Should the existing injunction be discharged?
(3) Should the injunction be continued (or reimposed)?
(4) Should the Defendant be ordered to destroy/deliver up the naked images of the
Claimant that she holds?
(5) Should the Defendant be ordered to delete certain social media posts?
(6) Should there be restrictions on access to the Court file?
(7) Should time for service of the Particulars of Claim be extended?
4. There were also some issues that the Defendant sought to raise but which I declined to
deal with. The hearing papers included an unsealed Application Notice filed by the
Defendant seeking a non-molestation order under the Family Law Act 1996, and an
unsealed Part 8 Claim Form. A draft order she submitted contained a non-molestation
order, a declaration recognising her alleged marriage to the Claimant and associated
financial obligations, an order for compensation for personal injury and emotional
distress, and an order that the Claimant be referred to the criminal authorities for
investigation.
5. I refused to deal with any of these matters. I could not tell whether the Application
Notice and Part 8 Claim Form had actually been issued by the Court. In any event, it
would have been inappropriate and impossible to deal with any of these matters at the
hearing. Indeed some of them would appear to be matters that are usually dealt with in
the Family Court, not the King’s Bench Division. If the Court has issued or eventually
issues the Defendant’s Application Notice or Claim Form, they will need to be placed
before a Judge for directions. The Defendant is free to contact the police herself (and
says she has done so). The injunction allows for this.
Background and recent developments
6. The Claimant’s account of the background to this claim is set out in the judgment of
Ritchie J at [12]-[30].
