Not-so-super injunctions

Mr Justice Tugendhat, now the most senior judge in the world of privacy cases, has once again flexed his judicial muscles, and it might be the beginning of the end for 'super injunctions'.  His latest ruling, in the case of JIH v News Group Newspapers, takes a bit of understanding.  A 'Premier League footballer', who for the purposes of this blog will be referred to as OPPD (over-paid prima donna), managed to get an interim injunction from another judge back in August, preventing the newspaper group from publishing some information that that he sought to keep private.  This was granted on the basis that revealing OPPD's identity was likely to damage his interests or frustrate the administration of justice.  Subsequent to this, OPPD and the newspaper agreed a consent order which seemed to be the end of the matter, as it allowed an injunction and anonymity.  However, this is where the plot thickens!



The supposed formality of getting this ratified by the court didn't go according to plan, as Mr Justice Tugendhat refused to rubber-stamp it without the parties turning up for a hearing.  At that hearing both parties made submissions, but instead of waving it through, the judge reserved judgement.  After pondering on it, the decision was revealed on Guy Fawkes Day, and the upshot was that he declined to make the order requiring that OPPD's identity shouldn't be revealed - one in the eye for Mr Justice Nicol, OPPD and the newspaper!

For the layman the judgement is hard to follow, but in essence it is that the identity of OPPD can be published, but we can't be told what he is alleged to have done. The rationale for making his judgement seems to be that people will speculate on these matters, either in the pub or on the internet, and the court can't stop that happening.  Therefore, the 'general principle of open justice' in this case allows the reporting of the name of the claimant, as it was not proven to the judge's satisfaction that 'the attainment of justice' would be damaged if the player's name was revealed.

The implications of this case are that it will, in future, be much harder to justify anonymity, as the ruling makes clear that a test of 'strict necessity' will be applied.  It also makes it harder for parties to agree consent orders, as judges will be required to test them properly rather than simply nodding them through.

So who is OPPD?  The judge gave 14 days for him to appeal against the ruling, so we may, just may, know who he is on Friday 19 November.