- Created by: channyx
- Created on: 20-03-20 22:12
An application to prohibit the publication of information concerning the fact of a specified personal relationship between the applicant and another person, and details of that relationship, was refused where the nub of the application was a desire to protect what was in substance the applicant's reputation and he was not likely to succeed in any claim for breach of confidence or misuse of private information. The freedom to live as one chose was one of the most valuable freedoms, but so was the freedom to criticise (within the limits of the law) the conduct of other members of society as being socially harmful or wrong.
The applicant (X) applied for an injunction prohibiting the publication of certain information by media third parties.
X had sought a prohibition on the publication of information and documents in four categories: (i) the fact of a specified personal relationship between X and another person who was named (Y); (ii) details of that relationship including certain specific consequences of it; (iii) information leading to the identification of X or Y; (iv) any photographs evidencing or relating to the fact or details of those matters. X accepted the truth of certain information which was sought to be protected by the order.
There was evidence that the information sought to be protected was already circulating widely by word of mouth, so what X sought in reality was a prohibition of publication to the public at large by broadcast in the press or other media. X had a number of high profile sponsorship or endorsement deals for companies including well known brand names associated with sport, consumer goods and a financial institution. X had been granted an interim injunction substantially in the form sought, including prohibition of reporting even its existence, pending determination of the application one week later.
The issues to be determined concerned how the court was to act compatibly with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 and art.10 and to give effect to corresponding common law principles relating to open justice, the right to a fair hearing, to the right to private life and to reputation, and the right to speak freely.
X contended that the…