MNB v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 9 Mar 2011

The defendant resisted an order preventing disclosure of information said by the claimant to be private.
Held: At the start of the hearing before herself, she had been told that the application for an interim injunction was no longer opposed. Subject to its right to apply to discharge or vary the order, NGN had agreed that the order should continue until trial or further order. Sharp J said: ‘There is no doubt in my view that the Claimant’s article 8 rights are engaged, both in relation to the subject matter of the action, and the identification of him as the Claimant. There is no doubt either that publication of the information as to the fact or details of the affair will result in some interference with the Claimant’s private life. It is not currently suggested by the Defendant that there is a public interest in the publication of the information or that there is any other reason for it to be disclosed. It is not suggested for example that the information was in the public domain. I am satisfied in accordance with section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that the Claimant is likely to establish at trial that publication of the information should not be allowed.’
Sharp J
[2011] EWHC 528 (QB), HQ11X00782
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10, Human Rights Act 1998 12(3)
Cited by:
See AlsoGoodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-May-2011
An associated claimant alleged contempt against another newspaper for publishing matters so as to defeat the purposes of a privacy injunction granted to her.
Held: Even though the principle claimant had been subsequenty identified with the . .
See AlsoGoodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 23-May-2011
The claimant had obtained orders restricting publication by the defendant of stories of his relationship with a woman. The order had also restrained publication of their names. The names had since been revealed under parliamentary prvilege, and the . .
See AlsoGoodwin v NGN Ltd and VBN QBD 9-Jun-2011
goodwin_ngn4QBD11
The claimant had obtained an injunction preventing publication of his name and that of his coworker with whom he had had an affair. After widespread publication of his name elsewhere, the defendant had secured the discharge of the order as regards . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.430503