An anonymity order in XYZ and ABC v Revolut was published on 20 April 2026.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
- The Intended Claimants have permission to issue a claim form in which they may be identified as XYZ and ABC respectively and they are to be referred to as such (or as the Claimants) thereafter, including in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the intended proceedings and in any judgment or order in the intended proceedings and in any report of the intended proceedings by the press or otherwise.
The full order can be found here.
This order comes from the Business and Property Courts and shows intended claimants proceeding in anonymity against Revolut Ltd.
Commercial disputes do not usually attract the same public attention as criminal or constitutional cases, but anonymity in this setting raises an important question: when should the civil courts allow parties in business-related litigation to conceal their identities?
Commercial litigation has always contained tension between privacy and transparency. Businesses may say publication risks fraud, misuse of confidential material, reputational damage or unfair commercial consequences before facts are tested.
The court may accept that some protection is justified but this needs to be balanced with public interest in open justice. Civil proceedings are not private arbitration merely because the sums are large or the issues are sensitive.
It is easy to assume anonymity in commercial cases is necessary or suspicious but neither are true. Some cases genuinely require confidentiality measures, especially where there is a risk of further wrongdoing or identification of vulnerable parties.
Yet the courts must be alert to the opposite danger in that anonymity becomes a soft privilege for well-resourced litigants who can frame ordinary reputational concerns as exceptional.
This is why it matters that the judge’s order itself becomes public. Even where names are withheld, publication of the order allows outsiders to know the case exists, what court is involved and what protective steps have been taken.
That at least preserves some accountability and preserve the doctrine of case law. A published order is not full transparency, but it is much better than a hidden one.
Commercial anonymity orders deserve especially close scrutiny because business litigation can have wider social importance. It may involve consumer systems, fintech practices, market conduct or questions which go beyond the immediate parties. If names disappear too readily, the public may struggle to join legal developments to the organisations and patterns they affect. That weakens the educative function of open justice.
Still, a court should not refuse anonymity merely to satisfy curiosity. The proper test remains necessity and proportionality. Judges have to ask what harm is said to arise from naming, whether the same aim can be achieved with narrower restrictions and what public interest would be lost by concealment. Those are not easy calls. But they are better made openly, by reasoned order, than informally behind the scenes.
My own view is that commercial anonymity should remain available, but only on a tight leash. I have first hand experienced commercial parties attempt to weaponise legal privilege in an attempt to gain legal ground.
If courts explain why protection is needed and keep the order under review, confidence can be maintained but if anonymity starts to look like the norm whenever business litigation turns awkward, confidence in the system falls.
Accountability of the courts is key is why orders like this being served publicly are so important. Justice has to be open enough to be understood, even when some details must be withheld.
Author: Joseph Stewart-Doyle
Leave a Reply