Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd

When deciding whether to vary or discharge a privacy injunction, the court must assess the evidence and the competing rights of all persons who may be affected. Public interest cannot be established by speculation, unsupported allegations or misinformation. A claimed breach of corporate governance requires evidence of the relevant facts, including any applicable disclosure. A person whose privacy may be affected should receive proper notice and an opportunity to respond. The court must balance freedom of expression under article 10 against privacy rights under article 8, while applying the requirements of Human Rights Act 1998, section 12.

The claimant had obtained anonymised privacy injunctions against the defendant newspaper concerning a sexual relationship with a work colleague. The order prohibited identification of the claimant and the colleague and publication of information about the relationship. Following identification of the claimant in statements made in Parliament, the defendant applied urgently to discharge the injunction in full, arguing that publication was now in the public interest and that the information was already public. Associated Newspapers advanced a further public-interest argument based on an alleged breach of corporate governance. The colleague had not been given notice of the application. The central issues were whether the injunction should be discharged or varied, whether the alleged public interest was supported by evidence, and how the affected parties’ privacy rights should be protected.

1. Disposition. The injunction was varied substantially by removing the prohibition on identifying the claimant, while retaining the prohibition on identifying the colleague and publishing details of the relationship.
2. Under section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court must have particular regard to freedom of expression, the public availability and public interest in publication, and any relevant privacy code. The court must also consider the article 8 rights of persons affected by the order, including the other party to a relationship and any children.
3. The corporate-governance argument failed. Courts act on evidence, not speculation. Without evidence that RBS, the claimant or the colleague had been asked about compliance with the relevant code, the court could not find that a breach had occurred or might have occurred. Whether a relationship constituted a governance failure depended on the particular facts and any disclosure made.
4. It was contrary to procedural fairness to make an adverse finding against the claimant or the colleague without warning them of the case advanced and giving them an opportunity to respond. Any future application affecting the colleague or her family required proper notice, stipulated in the order as three clear days.
5. The defendant’s wider application was also unsupported. There was no public interest in publishing misinformation or speculation about damaging matters that had not been investigated and were unsupported by evidence. The injunction did not prevent investigation or disclosure to the Financial Services Authority or another regulatory authority.
6. Variation or discharge of the injunction did not affect any right to pursue damages for invasion of privacy or defamation. The action was to proceed in the usual way.

The judgment records that Sharp J had made the original anonymised injunction on 9 March 2011, giving reasons in [2011] EWHC 528 (QB). Permission to appeal was refused and no appeal was pursued. The present court subsequently varied that injunction on the defendant’s application.