Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
View all articles
Authors

PUBLICITY: X and Y v Person or Persons who have offered and/or provided to the publishers of the Mail on Sunday, Mirror and Sun newspapers information about the status of the claimants marriage [2006] EWHC 2783 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:38 PM
Slug : x-and-y-v-person-or-persons-who-have-offered-and-or-provided-to-the-publishers-of-the-mail-on-sunday-mirror-and-sun-newspapers-information-about-the-status-of-the-claimants-marriage-2006-ewhc-2783-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 8, 2006, 04:33 AM
Article ID : 89011

(Queen's Bench Division; Eady J; 8 November 2006)

An order against persons unknown" had been granted, following an ex parte application, designed to prevent the further dissemination of allegations about the state of the claimants' marriage, information said to be inherently confidential in character and subject to a duty of confidence. The newspapers sought the discharge or modification of the injunction on the basis that the order was framed too widely or imprecisely, and that the order did not contain a public domain proviso. It was also claimed that the claimants were not entitled to protection, either because they had by their own media disclosures forfeited any right to privacy, or because by their failure to disclose all their previous dealings with the media they had forfeited the right to injunctive relief.

There was no doubt that most people would regard the sort of information at issue as confidential; it had not been established that this particular couple were entitled to any less privacy or confidence than the general run of married couples. A distinction was to be drawn between matters naturally accessible to outsiders and those known only to the protagonists; separation would not normally be a piece of private information, whereas private incompatibilities or disputes which might have contributed to breakdown would be. It was possible to limit the scope of such an order by attaching a confidential schedule containing the specific allegations said to be private in character which it was believed would be made public unless the injunction were granted. An applicant seeking ex parte injunctive relief had to take all practical steps to reveal material which was reasonably likely to assist the respondent's probable defence at trial; this was not the same as having to dredge up everything about the claimant in the public domain. The court had to be supplied with as complete a picture as possible of the knowledge of the applicants and their advisers, rather than being given general reassurance relying on possibly partisan or incomplete information. The applicant's advocate should make a conscientious determination, in the light of the information obtained, as to which points he or she would wish to make if instructed to represent media defendants on the other side. Any such injunction should include a public domain proviso; such a term could not be implied.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from