CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor

An anonymity and privacy injunction does not become ineffective merely because the information has been widely disseminated online. Privacy law protects against intrusion and harassment as well as against disclosure of secrets. Publication in the print media may therefore remain restrained where it would expose the claimant and his family to further intrusion, taunting or harassment. A parliamentary reference to the claimant’s identity does not necessarily weaken that protection and may strengthen the case for continued protection.

The claimant had obtained anonymity in proceedings against News Group Newspapers Limited and Imogen Thomas. Mr Justice Eady had refused an application by the first defendant to remove the claimant’s anonymity, holding that modern privacy law concerns intrusion as well as secrets: [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB).

After a Member of Parliament mentioned a name in the House of Commons, the first defendant sought a further application to remove the claimant’s anonymity. The central issue was whether widespread repetition of the claimant’s name on the internet, together with the parliamentary reference, meant that the injunction no longer served a legitimate protective purpose.

1. The application to remove the claimant’s anonymity was refused. The injunction remained effective insofar as it protected the claimant and his family from further intrusion and harassment in the print media.

2. The purpose of the injunction was not confined to preserving secrecy. Modern privacy law also protects against intrusion into private and family life, including harassment. The fact that the claimant’s identity had been repeated thousands of times on the internet therefore did not mean that the injunction had failed.

3. Online dissemination and print publication were materially different for the protective purpose of the order. Although the injunction had not prevented taunting on the internet, it continued to protect against taunting and other intrusion or harassment through newspapers.

4. The parliamentary reference did not diminish the claimant’s case. In the circumstances, it increased the strength of the case that the claimant and his family required protection from intrusion.

The judgment records an earlier decision by Mr Justice Eady refusing the first defendant’s application to remove the claimant’s anonymity: [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB). The present application, prompted by a parliamentary reference to the claimant’s identity, was refused.