Ministry of Defence v Global Media and Entertainment Limited & Ors

A super-injunction should be maintained only while the evidence establishes a sufficient protective benefit to justify its exceptional interference with freedom of expression and public scrutiny. A material change in the evidential basis may require discharge, particularly where the protected information has diminishing value over time. Predictive assessments must be evaluated against the current evidence and the competing risks of continuation and discharge. Where the evidence no longer provides a tenable basis for the injunction, it should be discharged. A narrower injunction may nevertheless protect personal data and other genuinely sensitive material while permitting reporting of the surrounding events.

The Ministry of Defence obtained a super-injunction in September 2023 after the accidental release of a dataset containing personal information about applicants for relocation from Afghanistan. The injunction prohibited disclosure both of the dataset incident and of the injunction itself. It was continued through successive reviews because of assessed risks that disclosure would enable the Taliban to obtain the dataset and target affected individuals.

In [2024] EWCA Civ 838, the Court of Appeal held that discharge would turn the risk of Taliban acquisition into a virtual certainty and directed continued periodic review. A later independent policy review concluded that the dataset was unlikely substantially to increase existing risks because the Taliban already possessed extensive relevant information. The central issue was whether that changed evidential picture justified discharge and, if so, whether any narrower protection remained necessary.

1. The super-injunction was discharged. The independent policy review fundamentally undermined the evidential basis on which the injunction had previously been continued. It concluded that Taliban acquisition of the dataset was unlikely substantially to change an individual's existing exposure, that merely appearing on the dataset was unlikely to be grounds for targeting, and that family members were unlikely to be targeted simply because a principal appeared on it.
2. The court found no plausible basis for a successful challenge to the review's conclusions. The report drew on a wide range of sources, and public law required respect for predictive assessments of this kind. In light of the review, there was no tenable basis for continuing the super-injunction.
3. The conclusion was reinforced by the serious interference caused by a super-injunction with the media defendants' freedom of expression and the public's correlative right to receive information. The court also recognised the importance of restoring public and Parliamentary scrutiny of significant policy decisions.
4. The injunction was discharged at noon on 15 July 2025, allowing time for affected persons to be informed and protective measures to be implemented.
5. Separately, the court granted an interim contra mundum injunction in substantially narrower terms pending a further hearing. It permitted reporting of almost all the relevant circumstances, but prohibited disclosure of the personal data in the dataset and description of the types of information in the case-notes column. Persons possessing the dataset or derived information were generally required to deliver up or destroy copies if requested, subject to exemptions for accredited journalists and legal professionals. Continuation and precise form of that interim injunction were reserved for further consideration.

• High Court (King's Bench Division): Robin Knowles J granted the super-injunction on 1 September 2023. The reasons were given in a private ruling dated 2 September 2023.
• High Court (King's Bench Division): the injunction was continued in successive judgments, including [2023] EWHC 2999 (KB), [2024] EWHC 312 (KB) and [2024] EWHC 1220 (KB).
• Court of Appeal: on the MOD's appeal from Judgment no. 3, the court held that the super-injunction should continue, subject to periodic review: [2024] EWCA Civ 838.
• High Court (King's Bench Division): following a material change in the evidence, the present court discharged the super-injunction and granted a narrower interim injunction pending a further hearing.