CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 1334 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ11X01432 |
| Date | 23 May 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 1334 (QB)
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ11X01432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori (instructed by Schillings) for the Claimant
Richard Spearman QC (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the First Defendant
David Price QC (of David Price Solicitors & Advocates) for the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 23 May 2011
At about 1430 this afternoon Eady refused NGN's application to remove the anonymity he had granted to the claimant on 20 April. He said at para 23 ( [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB)) that "It is important always to remember that the modern law of privacy is not concerned solely with secrets: it is also concerned importantly with intrusion". Intrusion in this sense includes harassment.
Very shortly afterwards a name was mentioned by Mr Hemming MP in the House of Commons in the course of a question which was interrupted by the Speaker. On that basis NGN asked me to hear a further application shortly after 5pm for the anonymity of the claimant to be removed. As the public now know, anyone who wanted to find out the name of the claimant could have learnt it many days ago. The reason is that it is has been repeated thousands of times on the internet. NGN now want to join in.
It is obvious that if the purpose of this injunction were to preserve a secret, it would have failed in its purpose. But in so far as its purpose is to prevent intrusion or harassment, it has not failed. The fact that tens of thousands of people have named the claimant on the internet confirms that the claimant and his family need protection from intrusion into their private and family life. The fact that a question has been asked in Parliament seems to me to increase, and not to diminish the strength of his case that he and his family need that protection. The order has not protected the claimant and his family from taunting on the internet. It is still effective to protect them from taunting and other intrusion and harassment in the print media.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd
...public". 27 Eady J and Tugendhat J have since further elaborated the significance of the principle in successive judgments in CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB) and 1334 (QB). In CTB, as in the present case, an interim injunction had been granted to restrain disclosure o......
-
Geoffrey Driver v Crown Prosecution Service
...and CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB), para 23 (Eady J), to which can be added CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1334 (QB), para 3 (Tugendhat J), Rocknroll v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 24 (Ch), para 25 (Briggs J), and H v A (No 2) [2015] EWHC 263......
-
Alaedeen Sicri v Associated Newspapers Ltd
...the interference should continue to carry substantial weight in the balancing exercise. Indeed, in CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1334 (QB) [3] (in a passage cited and approved in PJS [62]), Tugendhat J regarded the fact that “tens of thousands of people have named the claiman......
-
Bvc v Ewf
...accessible but whether the remedy of injunction would serve a useful purpose ( PJS, above, and see eg CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1334 (QB)). Much of the information disclosed in the Defendant's website concerns private matters other than the Claimant's sexual life; but eve......
-
EFFECTIVELY PROTECTING PRIVATE FACTS
...asked in Parliament seems to me to increase and not diminish the strength of his case that he and his family need that protection”: [2011] EWHC 1334 (QB) at [3]. 93 Orders are sometimes granted against internet service providers compelling revelation of the identity of persons hosting websi......
-
Death by Birdsong: Has Twitter Sealed the Coffin on Britain's Privacy Injunction?
...CTB, [2011] EWHC (QB) 1232; CTB v. News Grp. Newspapers, Ltd., [2011] EWHC (QB) 1326 (Eng.); CTB v. News Grp. Newspapers, Ltd., [2011] EWHC (QB) 1334 (Eng.).53. CTB, [2011] EWHC (QB) 1232 at [19].54. Id. at [23]-[24]. 55. Id. at [24].56. Id. at [25]; see also Von Hannover v. Germany, 2004-V......