← All insights Complex problems

Acting against a person you cannot yet name

Money has gone, or something damaging has been published, or your work is being sold, and there is no name attached to any of it. The instinct is to treat finding out who they are as the first problem and the legal question as something waiting behind it. That order is usually the wrong way round.

Two beliefs tend to arrive together, and both are unreliable. The first is that an anonymous opponent is beyond reach, so nothing can be done. The second, held by people who have read a little, is that a name can be obtained quickly and that everything follows from it. Anonymity online is rarely absolute, but it is also rarely undone by a single step, and the name at the end of the process is worth only what the person carrying it can be made to do.

There is a further difficulty peculiar to this situation. In an ordinary dispute you can weigh the other side up: their size, their solicitors, what they stand to lose. Against someone unidentified you are making decisions about cost and risk with the most important variable missing, and the decisions cannot all wait until it is filled in.

Anonymity is usually thinner than it appears, and not equally thin

Very few people set out to be untraceable. Most simply never had to give a name to anyone you can see, which is a different condition and a far weaker one. Somebody who has taken deliberate steps to obstruct identification is a harder and materially more expensive proposition than somebody who merely never had occasion to give a name, and treating the two as one problem is how budgets are set wrongly at the outset.

That difference is the largest single variable in what this exercise costs, and it is not visible from the material in front of you. Two matters that look alike on the screen can sit at opposite ends of a very wide range of expense, with no reliable relationship between how serious the harm feels and how much work the answer takes. Which of them you are in is worth establishing before money is committed, and it is the question most often left until afterwards.

What identification actually has to produce

The word people use is unmasking, which suggests a single moment of revelation. What actually has to be produced is an evidential proposition: that this named person, and not someone who shares a characteristic with them, is responsible for this conduct. That proposition will be tested by the person named, by intermediaries asked to act on it, and eventually by a court in England and Wales. A conclusion that satisfies you will not necessarily survive any of them.

Most people arrive already certain. It is a former employee, or a distributor whose contract was ended, or an obvious competitor. That certainty is the most dangerous thing in the file. It causes contrary indications to be discounted, it shapes what is looked for, and it produces exactly the confident public accusation that turns a claimant into a defendant. Being right about who it is and being able to establish who it is are separate achievements.

The price is also not settled at the outset. Work of this kind can conclude quickly or can run a good deal further than the first estimate suggested, and it is not always possible to say in advance which it will be. The decision worth taking early is therefore how much the harm justifies spending before any answer arrives, rather than treating the answer as a fixed purchase.

What a court can be asked to do about it

The law of England and Wales does not leave a wronged party without recourse merely because the person responsible has never given a name. Routes exist through which a court can be asked to assist, and none of them is a form to be submitted or an outcome to be assumed.

The court is being asked to override an expectation of confidentiality, and it weighs the strength of the underlying complaint against the interests of the person who would be identified. That person has rights of their own, including protections over their personal data under the law of the United Kingdom, and where the complaint concerns something published, freedom of expression carries weight as well. Anonymity is not a right, but neither is it removed because somebody objects to what was said.

Two practical consequences catch people out. The exercise carries costs well beyond the cost of asking. And what comes back may be thin, stale or untrue, so an application can succeed on its own terms and still leave you knowing very little. Whether what is likely to exist justifies the attempt is a judgement made before anything is issued, and it is the judgement that decides whether the money is well spent.

A claim does not always have to wait for a name

Proceedings in England and Wales can be brought against persons unknown. The courts have developed this because the alternative, allowing a wrong to continue because nobody has yet been named, would make anonymity a defence in itself. Orders including injunctions can be made in that form, and identification can then continue while the claim is on foot.

The limits matter as much as the possibility. An order of that kind is only worth holding if it can be brought to the attention of whoever is bound by it, and if there is something to be done when it is ignored. How far it helps depends on what you actually want to achieve, which is why the objective has to be settled before any mechanism is chosen.

What happens on the day the name arrives

The question almost nobody asks at the beginning is what happens on the day the name arrives. If the answer is a person with nothing, or an entity that exists only on paper, or someone in a place where a judgment obtained in England and Wales would be difficult to enforce, then identification has been bought as an end in itself. That is a legitimate purchase if knowing is what you want. It is a poor one if you were expecting recovery.

In practice the commercial value of identification often lies elsewhere, and it is worth being honest about which value you are pursuing. Establishing that a number of accounts are one operation changes whether you keep paying for removals. Establishing that the information behind an approach could only have come from inside changes a supplier relationship, a contract, or a set of internal controls, and it does so without any court being troubled. Several of the most useful outcomes here are commercial decisions taken quietly rather than remedies obtained in public.

When not to act, and what is not worth doing

Some of these situations do not warrant spending anything, and saying so plainly matters more than the alternative. A single anonymous remark that nobody who matters to your business has seen, an isolated small transaction, a lone overseas seller shifting nothing of consequence: the cost of establishing who is behind each of those can exceed the harm, and the exercise cannot be part paid for. Where the practical objective is removal or blocking rather than accountability, it can sometimes be achieved without a name at all, which is cheaper and faster.

Two things are worth doing in the meantime, and both are free. Keep what you have, in the form you have it, because the material that establishes the position is usually gone long before anybody appreciates that it mattered. And stay quiet. Messaging the account, hinting at what you know, or letting a colleague post about it converts an opponent who is careless into one who is careful.

What is genuinely not worth doing is buying an answer from someone who will not explain where it came from. Information gathered improperly contaminates what sits around it, hands the other side a story about your conduct rather than theirs, and can expose you to complaint under the data protection law of the United Kingdom. An incomplete picture that can be shown to anybody is a better starting position than a complete one that cannot.

This guide is general information about how these matters usually run. It is not advice, and nothing becomes advice until terms are agreed in writing. Brandleys Legal Ltd delivers reserved legal activities alongside regulated partners.