Wer v Rew

Wer v Rew

The injunction should be continued until trial or further order despite the claimant not disclosing the truth or public domain status of the information, as the stance is legitimate under McKennitt v Ash and the respondent does not oppose. Notification to media organisations should be limited to those with demonstrated interest in the story.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: WER; Respondent/defendant: REW
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Injunction continued until trial or further order
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Misuse of Private Information, Article 10 ECHR, Public Domain, Practice Direction CPR 25, Notification to Media Defendants
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Misuse of Private Information Article 10 ECHR Public Domain Practice Direction CPR 25 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WER

Applicant/claimant

REW

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction restraining publication of allegedly private information should be continued when the truth or public domain status of the information is not disclosed
  2. 2 Whether advance notice must be given to all media organisations intended to be served with the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction should be continued until trial or further order despite the claimant not disclosing the truth or public domain status of the information, as the stance is legitimate under McKennitt v Ash and the respondent does not oppose. Notification to media organisations should be limited to those with demonstrated interest in the story.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued until trial or further order

Orders

  • Judgment to be supplied in redacted form to third parties, omitting quotation from paragraph 6 of applicant's skeleton argument
  • Injunction continued against respondent and notified media organisations