header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 October 2010
Issue: 7437 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Injunction—Privacy—Blackmail

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

AMM v HXW [2010] EWHC 2457 (QB), [2010] All ER (D) 48 (Oct)

Injunction—Privacy—Blackmail 

AMM v HXW [2010] EWHC 2457 (QB), [2010] All ER (D) 48 (Oct)
Queen’s Bench Division, Tugendhat J, 7 Oct 2010

The court’s decision whether or not grant anonymity to a party or witness to proceedings cannot be an exercise of a discretion, but must be a matter of obligation.

Mark Warby QC and Victoria Jolliffe (instructed by Olswang) for the claimant.
Hugh Tomlinson QC (instructed by JMW Solicitors LLP) for the defendant.
The claimant applied for an injunction to restrain the publication of information which he claimed to be private. After proceedings had begun, and an interim injunction granted, a newspaper article was published titled “TV celebrity wins court order gagging his ex-wife”.

The article stated that “A married TV star has won a court gagging order to prevent details of his private life being published. The celebrity, who has a huge public profile, has obtained an injunction stopping his ex-wife writing about their relationship and claiming that they had a sexual affair after he remarried.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll