We had a post last week about the well-known “Trafigura” case – the “super-injunction” which was granted on 11 September 2009 and whose existence was subsequently disclosed in the House of Commons by Paul Farrelly MP. The order itself was published by the “Guardian” in October 2009 (along with a “Clause by Clause” guide from Alan Rusbridger). The “Guardian” has now provided us with a copy of the Judgment of Mr Justice Maddison on the initial injunction application.
This judgment, in the case of RJW v Guardian News and Media Limited  EWHC 2540 (QB), was delivered after what appears to have been a short hearing at which the “Guardian” was represented by leading counsel. It was made clear that the “Guardian” was “simply not in a position fully to argue this case today”  and, as a result, the injunction was not opposed. It was, however, granted for a period of only 7 days for a 1 day hearing.
The “Guardian” did, however, oppose the making of an anonymity order, citing the need for open justice. The Judge however, granted the order, holding that “in the short term the anonymity of the claimants ought to be preserved” .
Interestingly, the judgment does not record any argument or decision about the “super-injunction” element of the order (the prohibition on “the publication of information relating to the proceedings or of information describing them“).
The injunction was, ultimately, discharged by consent following the disclosure of its existence in the House of Commons.