Case Law: Ali v Channel 5, Can’t pay? Court of Appeal does not take claimants’ damages away (but neither will it increase them) – Tom Double

24 04 2019

In Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 677, the Court of Appeal considered whether countervailing privacy and the public interest/freedom of expression rights had been properly balanced, together with the appropriate award of privacy damages arising from footage of an eviction shown on Channel 5, the Defendant in this action. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Boyd v Ineos, “Persons unknown” injunctions against future protest action – Charlotte Gilmartin

23 04 2019

In Boyd & Anor v Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 515, the Court of Appeal handed down a fascinating judgment exploring the tension between the exercise of the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression and the protection of property rights. Read the rest of this entry »





Google vs. Equustek: Unfortunate Precedent or Positive Development? – Hugh Stephens

19 04 2019

I have written about the case of Google Inc vs Equustek Solutions several times over the past couple of years (for example, herehere, and here). This series of blog posts tracked the evolution of the case. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Hayes v Willoughby, Injunction granted in leading harassment action breached – Samuel Rowe

4 04 2019

On 8 March 2019, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke sentenced Michael Willoughby for several five breaches of a harassment injunction, which had originally been ordered in 2011 by the Court of Appeal ([2019] EW Misc 5 (CC)). Read the rest of this entry »





News: Privacy Injunction Statistics for 2018, five applications recorded, substantial reduction from 2017

26 03 2019

The Ministry of Justice has published the privacy injunction statistics for 2018.  These record a total of 5 new interim privacy injunction applications. Of these 3 were granted, one was refused and one was withdrawn. The statistics are to be found in Section 7 of the Civil Justice Quarterly for October to December 2018 [pdf], published earlier this month. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Venables v News Group Papers, Application to Vary Confidentiality Injunction Dismissed, PJS extended – Samuel Rowe

13 03 2019

On 4 March 2019, the decision in Venables & Anor v News Group Papers Ltd & Ors ([2019] EWHC 494 (Fam)) was handed down.  The case concerned an application to vary a confidentiality injunction which had been ordered in 2001, restricting identification of Jon Venables. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Linklaters LLP v Mellish, Protecting confidential information in the open – Alexander Vakil

12 02 2019

In a judgment of 5 February 2019, Mr Justice Warby granted Linklaters an interim non-disclosure injunction against a former employee and set a return date hearing (which was heard yesterday). Following the return date hearing, the continuation of the injunction was not opposed and the case was stood over until 22 February 2019, when a further hearing has been scheduled. Read the rest of this entry »





Philip Green Injunction: is anonymity for celebrities really worth the potential backlash? – Ashley Hurst and Alex Vakil

4 11 2018

The disclosure by Lord Hain in Parliament that Sir Philip Green was the individual who had obtained an anonymous privacy injunction against the Telegraph has once again cast doubt on the effectiveness of such injunctions against the press. Read the rest of this entry »





Why Lord Hain was wrong to disclose Sir Philip Green’s name – Tom Double

29 10 2018

Lord Hain’s decision to name Sir Philip Green in the House of Lords as the individual who obtained an interim-injunction against the Daily Telegraph has polarised opinion.  Read the rest of this entry »





Lord Hain and Privilege: When power, wealth and abuse combine to subvert the rule of law – Paul Wragg

27 10 2018

Judges have their role to play, and Parliamentarians theirs, and “it is for the public to judge whether what I have done is right or wrong”, says Lord Peter Hain.  Yet since Lord Hain chose to breach the court injunction issued by the Court of Appeal in ABC v Telegraph Group plc by hiding behind Parliamentary privilege, this is exactly what the public does not get to do.  Read the rest of this entry »