The Court gave its reasons for requiring the delivery up of materials said to be confidential and making an order for anonymity, finding that the claimant had been blackmailed.
Judges:
Sharp J
Citations:
[2013] EWHC 637 (QB)
Links:
Citing:
Cited – DFT v TFD QBD 27-Sep-2010
The court heard an application for an injunction to restrain publication of material relating to the claimant’s private and sexual life.
Held: An injunction restraining publication and identification, but not an order restraining publication . .
Cited – AMM v HXW QBD 7-Oct-2010
The claimant had sought and been granted an injunction to prevent the defendant publicising matters which had passed between them and which were he said private.
Held: The jurisdiction to grant such injunctions was now established. Publication . .
Cited – JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 5-Nov-2010
The court was asked as to the circumstances under which the identity of a claimant should be protected in an action where he sought to restrain the publication of private information about him.
Held: Tugendhat J accepted the proposition . .
Cited – Ntuli v Donald CA 16-Nov-2010
The defendant sought the discharge of a super-injunction, an order against not only the identification of the parties, but also the existence of the proceedings.
Held: The order preventing publication of the underlying allegations remained, . .
Cited – Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders 20-May-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471925