The claimants had obtained an injunction preventing publication of details of their private lives and against being publicly named. The newspaper had not attempted to raise any public interest defence. Various publications had taken place to breach the injunctions, and the defendants now sought the discharge of the injunction.
Held: The order should not be discharged: ‘The court does not grant injunctions which would be futile. But the fact that these publications have occurred does not mean that the there should be no injunction in this case.’ The defendants approach had allowed them greater freedom than they might have had to publsh material related to the case: ‘The stance adopted by NGN in this case (neither resisting the injunction, nor consenting to it) had the consequence that The Sun’s article about the case under the heading ‘New ace gags Sun . . ‘ was accurate, whereas it would have been less easy to print such a headline if NGN had offered undertakings or otherwise avoided the need for the court to issue an injunction . . NGN does not explain why it adopts it. It is the court’s experience that in the past NGN has submitted to injunctions which it could not defend, or settled cases, as it did in JIH. If parties choose to exercise their right neither to oppose nor consent to injunctions, it has the further effect of taking up the time of the court that would be available to other litigants.’
Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 1308 (QB)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Barrymore v News Group Newspapers Limited ChD 1997
The newspaper defendant sought to publish information about features of an intimate homosexual relationship. The plaintiff sought to prevent it.
Held: The injunction was granted.
Jacob J said: ‘The fact is that when people kiss and later . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Editions Plon (Societe) v France ECHR 18-May-2004
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 10 with regard to the interim injunction ; Violation of Art. 10 with regard to the permanent injunction ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; . .
Cited – Clayton v Clayton CA 27-Jun-2006
The family had been through protracted family law proceedings and had been subject to orders restricting identification. The father now wanted to discuss his experiences and to campaign. He could not do so without his child being identified.
Cited – Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray v Express Newspapers CA 7-May-2008
The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .
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 – CDE and Another v MGN Ltd and Another QBD 16-Dec-2010
In considering a request for injunction restraining publication of private matters, the court may consider also the effect of publication on a child of the claimant’s family. . .
Cited – Mosley v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2011
The claimant complained of the reporting of a sexual encounter which he said was private.
Held: The reporting of ‘tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life’ does not attract the robust protection under Article 10 afforded to more . .
Cited – G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc QBD 2-Dec-2009
The claimants sought an order that the defendants, an internet company in Florida, should disclose the IP address of a registered user of the site with a view to identifying the user and pursuing an action against him or her.
Held: Tugendhat J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Human Rights
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.440090
