After a weekend in which privacy injunctions continued to dominate the headlines, yesterday morning saw further developments in the privacy case brought by Sir Fred Goodwin against News Group Newspapers [2011] EWHC 1309 (QB). In a judgment handed down in the High Court on Monday 23 May 2011, Tugendhat J gave his reasons for refusing to discharge the full injunction obtained by the claimant at an earlier hearing. In so doing, the Judge rejected the suggestion that there was a credible public interest argument to support the lifting of the injunction at this stage. The Judge also took the opportunity to highlight and criticise some significant factual inaccuracies that have accompanied some media reports of the case.
Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: May 2011 (Page 2 of 5)
Could the argument over privacy get any more heated? It started by pitting individuals against the media, the one fighting to protect their article 8 rights to respect for their private lives, the other arguing in favour of their article 10 rights to free speech. And the row has not stopped since the two rights were incorporated into UK law by the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. Continue reading
We have already discussed the Report of the Neuberger Committee on Super-injunctions published on Friday 20 May 2011 (see our post here). It contains a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the issues, making a series of modest and carefully considered proposals. As a result, it has not been welcomed by the some sections of the press which appear to want total judicial capitulation to their interests. Continue reading
News
This has been yet another week of privacy frenzy. On Monday 16 May 2011 there was a hearing in the case of CTB v News Group Newspapers. Eady J handed down a judgment ([2011] EWHC 1232 (QB)) which attracted huge press coverage – largely because one of the defendants, Imogen Continue reading
The major problem about the denial in English law of a claim in defamation to public bodies in the absence of proof of actual financial loss is that the purpose of it is unclear. The following grounds for application of the rule are possible. Continue reading
The report of Lord Neuberger’s Committee on Super-Injunctions – “Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice” – is a thorough and substantial piece of work. providing a 76 page survey of the law and practice relating to privacy injunction, setting out “Draft Guidance for Interim Non-Disclosure Orders”, a model “Explanatory Note” and a draft “Standard Form Order”. Continue reading
A year from its creation, the Master of the Rolls’ committee looking at “super injunctions” has made its recommendations, following widespread concern about secret and anonymised court orders. Continue reading
Following hot on the heels of the Jeremy Clarkson/Jemima Khan “Twittergate”, Andrew Marr’s epiphany and Mosley’s Strasbourg judgment, privacy has never been at a greater point of hysteria than Friday 20 May 2011. Today, there is simply nothing more newsworthy. Continue reading
In German law, defamation is primarily seen as a crime under §§185 ff of the Criminal Code, and therefore also as a tort under § 823(2) of the Civil Code. There has never been an objection to individual members of a group suing for defamation of that group (See eg BVerfGE 93, 266 (the ‘soldiers are murderers’ case) (translation R Youngs). Continue reading
The report of the Neuberger Committee on super-injunctions is due out tomorrow. It can confidently be predicted that it will not satisfy those elements in the media which have been campaigning against privacy injunctions. The committee was set up to “examine the issues around the use of injunctions which bind the press and so-called ‘super-injunctions’”. It cannot, and will not, recommend changes in the substantive law. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑