Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
Spotlight
Children and Same Sex Families
Children and Same Sex Families
Children and Same Sex Families: A Legal Handbook
More info
Mental Capacity
Mental Capacity
Mental Capacity: Law and Practice
More info
Evidence in Family Proceedings
Evidence in Family Proceedings
Evidence in Family Proceedings
More info
View All
A day in the life Of...
Read on

SMO (a child) (by their litigation friend (acting as a representative claimant pursuant to CPR 19.6)) v TikTok Inc. and others [2020] EWHC 3589 (QB)

Date:22 JAN 2021
Third slide
Samantha Bangham
Law Reporter

(Queen's Bench Division, Warby J, 30 December 2020)

Practice and procedure - Anonymity – 12-year-old bringing claim against TikTok for breach of data protection legislation – Claimant sought anonymity

The child’s application for anonymity in proceedings concerning a breach of data protection legislation was allowed.

For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482.

 

 

Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 3589 (QB)

Case No: QB-2020-004576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down by the judge remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and release to Bailii. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be as shown opposite:

Date: 30/12/2020

Before:


THE HON. MR JUSTICE WARBY

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

Between:

SMO (a child) 
by their litigation friend, Anne Longfield

[acting as a representative claimant pursuant to CPR 19.6]
Claimant

- and -

(1) TIKTOK INC.
(2) TIKTOK INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
(3) TIKTOK TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
(4) BYTEDANCE LTD
(5) BEIJING BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

(6) MUSICAL.LY
Defendants

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

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

Charles Ciumei QC and Helen Morton (instructed by Scott+Scott UK LLP) for the Claimant
The Defendants were not present or represented

Hearing date: 30 December 2020

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

Approved Judgment
I direct that that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

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

 

 

Judgment: SMO v TikTok [2020] EWHC 3589 (QB)

Family Law Reports
Family Law Reports
"The unrivalled and authoritative source of...
£509.99
View product
Court of Protection Practice 2021
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength...
£319.99
View product
Family Court Practice, The
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition
£629.99
View product
Categories:
Judgments Practice and Procedure
Copyright © 2021 LexisNexis