MNB v News Group Newspapers Ltd

In privacy proceedings, an interim anonymity or reporting restriction may protect against jigsaw identification. The court must balance Article 8 privacy rights against Article 10 freedom of expression and the principle of open justice. The restriction must go no further than necessary, but information need not identify a claimant by itself if it may do so when combined with other information. At first instance, a private hearing may be necessary where the factual issues are broad and disclosure risks defeating the injunction. Continued publication may justify relief even where similar information is already publicly available, provided the order would still serve a protective purpose.

Henriques J granted a temporary injunction restraining publication of information concerning the Claimant’s sexual relationship and identifying information. The order permitted publication of material already in the public domain through national media, but otherwise restricted publication of information concerning the proceedings, the Claimant’s identity and the relationship.

At the return hearing, the Defendant no longer opposed continuation of the injunction, but published an article referring to the injunction and to the Claimant’s occupation. The Claimant sought further protection, arguing that the article breached the order, created a risk of jigsaw identification and disclosed private information. The Defendant disputed the order’s ambit and argued that the details were already public. The court also considered whether the hearing should be in private.

1. Interim protection. The Claimant was likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed. The Article 8 rights engaged included both the private information itself and the Claimant’s identification as the person concerned. The court was required to balance those rights against Article 10 rights and open justice, applying section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
2. Scope of the order. The purpose of the order was to prevent publication of information which identified the Claimant or tended to identify him. Jigsaw identification may arise from separate items which do not identify a person individually but do so when combined. The relevant information need not itself be private.
3. Subject matter. Information about the affair included comments revealing its length, timing, the parties’ reactions or their current status. The details published by the Defendant fell within information tending to identify the Claimant and information concerning the subject matter of the proceedings.
4. Public interest and public domain. There was no sufficient general public interest in publishing the details to justify the serious interference with Article 8 rights. Section 12(4)(a)(ii) of the Human Rights Act 1998 was considered, but continued dissemination by the Defendant meant that an order would still serve a purpose. The Defendant could not continue publishing the article in its current form.
5. Private hearing and contempt. The hearing was properly held in private because first-instance proceedings ranged widely over facts and detailed discussion risked revealing the protected information. The position might differ on appeal where issues were narrowed and written. The court made no finding of contempt; any such issue would require committal proceedings. That did not prevent interim protection against publication undermining the order.

First-instance decision. The judgment records that Henriques J had granted the temporary injunction on 1 March 2011, which was continued until trial or further order.