Has the super-injunction had its day? Rebecca Cushing reports
This year has seen something of a judicial shift in emphasis in the court’s consideration of interim injunctions. Earlier this year concerns were growing that a privacy law was developing via the back door after several decisions led to the granting of super-injunctions to high profile individuals. Such injunctions, although protecting the private and family life of the party involved, fuelled speculation that gagging orders were becoming more frequent at the expense of public interest.
John Terry’s super injunction (or lack of it) temporarily altered that. Despite obtaining a super injunction after learning the News of the World planned to publish a story about his alleged affair, not only was the super part of the injunction subsequently dismissed but so was the injunction itself. Tugendhat J implied that he felt Terry had less of an interest in protecting his privacy than he claimed; rather he was more concerned with protecting his reputation. He thought that the injunction was neither necessary nor proportionate.
Now it
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77b6c3cc_1)
