Earlier this week we commented on an interim privacy injunction obtained by singer and X-factor judge Tulisa Contostavlos to restrain the publication of a purported “sex tape” on the Internet.  At that stage, relying on reports of earlier statements by her management, we reported the injunction as being in “false privacy“.  Tulisa has now posted a clip on You Tube (see below) to her 1.7 million followers on Twitter, to “set the record straight”. 

On her You Tube clip Tulisa accepts that she is the woman shown on the video.  She says she is “‘devastated and heartbroken”. She provides an explanation of some of the background and says that the video shows her and her ex-boyfriend, Justin Edwards, aka MC Ultra.   She accuses him of having posted the video online.

Justin Edwards has responded to this video . On his Twitter page today he said:

‘To find the truth both sides of the story should be heard b4 passing judgement #thatisall.’

There are news reports of the story in the “Independent“, “Daily Mail“, “Daily Telegraph” and the “Metro“.

In other words, it appears that the case was not one of “false privacy” – but rather “true privacy” – a video taken in a private place showing intimate activity involving the claimant.  On the information presently available, it is difficult to see how there could be any public interest in the continued availability of such a video.

It seems likely that  the privacy injunction was granted on Monday on the basis that the “sex tape” in question did, indeed, show the claimant.   As mentioned in our previous post, it can be expected that, in accordance with the modern practice, Mr Justice Tugendhat will shortly hand down a public judgment explaining the reasons why the injunction was granted.

This case is an interesting illustration of the use of social media to disclose private information and then to deal with the consequences of disclosure.  The consequence of the initial disclosure has been, as is often the case, that more private information has to be disclosed by the claimant.   It remains to be seen how much further the dispute will be played out in the courts.