Super Injunctions

D

dangerousdave

Well-Known Forumite
look, i'm sure we all know which footballer has been shagging Imogen Thomas (if you don't know, why should you be bothered anyways? She's only famous for not being famous...). Anyways, said individual (shall we call him Bryan Biggs for arguements sake) is now trying to get information about the people on twitter who've mentioned this. As far as I'm aware (and I'm no legal expert), don't you have to be named specifically in a super injunction saying that you specifically can't mention the case? I have actually asked this prize penis to sue me (via twitter) to test this. I'm guessing that the defence of me not having had access to the exact legal ruling on this case should stand up in court if needs be. anyone more legally minded care to clarify if i'm right on this one though?...
 
ATJ

ATJ

Well-Known Forumite
I have a sneaking suspicion that said footballer is getting some very bad legal advice from a firm more interested in making their name than in protecting his privacy.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Law firm suggests taking to court a firm based in a country that cares not about your stupid injunctions? I think they may need new jobs...
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Prize penis? Are you aware of Ms Thomas's assessment, then?

Ignorance of a law that you're not actually allowed to know about seems a reasonable enough excuse to me.

ATJ's assessment of the commercial aspects of this seem potentially spot-on.
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
dangerousdave said:
Bryan Biggs
Click to expand...
After a cursory reading of this thread, I was confused into wondering why there should be a super-injunction about Brian Rix being caught with his trousers down. That used to be a staple part of weekend television schedules back when we had standards...
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Brian Rix, sans culottes, with a lady whom I shall identify only as Kelicity Fendall....

Rix.jpg
 
Withnail

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
dangerousdave said:
Withnail said:
dangerousdave said:
I'm guessing that the defence of me not having had access to the exact legal ruling on this case should stand up in court if needs be.
Click to expand...
Ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance of the law excuses no one.
Click to expand...
ah, but surely no knowledge of a legal ruling which i do not have access to is different to ignorance of the law
Click to expand...
The ruling is here;

http://www.5rb.com/docs/CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd Imogen Thomas [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB).pdf

dangerousdave said:
don't you have to be named specifically in a super injunction saying that you specifically can't mention the case?
Click to expand...
The ruling ends

Publication of any report as to the subject-matter of these proceedings or the identity of the Claimant is limited to what is contained in this judgment and in the order of the
court dated 21 April 2011.
Click to expand...
which sounds pretty unequivocal.

Edit: Link didn't [work]. Actually, it begins and ends like that, which may be twice as unequivocal.
 
Withnail

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Gramaisc said:
I get a "404 - page no longer exists" - all seems a bit Kafkaesque to me....
Click to expand...
^^Edit.

In essence it has been deemed that the 'right to privacy' has top trumped the 'right to freedom of expression' in this instance.

Curious one this, as the judge seems to be working on the basis that the defendant would win (his) case for an injunction if it went to trial - thus being rather prejudicial.

As for the case against Twitter, i wouldn't be over worried if i were dangerousdave - the injunction may blanket ban publication, but action against those in contempt would presumably have to proceed on an individual basis, almost impossible to go for everyone one would have thought?
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Withnail said:
Curious one this, as the judge seems to be working on the basis that the defendant would win (his) case for an injunction if it went to trial - thus being rather prejudicial.
Click to expand...
Very odd.
 
United57

United57

Well-Known Forumite
Withnail said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQSJMOp8m2A&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...
That made my day.

Over 80 super injunctions.

So lawyers have made about £40 to 80 million. Even more.

As usual lawyers take the money knowing that the injunctions have no effect outside the UK.

If they did not realise this then they should not be lawyers.

Even the Government could not stop spy catcher.

Should celebs be able to protect their privacy? Freedom of speech v privacy.

I guess eventually we will get an in the middle situation with a rule and a list of exceptions. Lawyers love that!

The worry is the super injunctions that stop the public from being informed.
 
United57

United57

Well-Known Forumite
I think this is an excellent article

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news-commentary/-the-super-injunction-an-invention-of-imaginative-lawyers-and-judges-who-have-forgotten-basic-equity-law-/s6/a537904/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top