2009/12/2 Michael Peel <em...@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.


-- 
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Reply via email to