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
Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll