Contostavlos v Mendahun [2012] EWHC 850 (QB) (29 March 2012)

Contostavlos v Mendahun [2012] EWHC 850 (QB) (29 March 2012)

The claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the sexual video footage, and the continued publication or disclosure of such material would be a serious and unjustified intrusion. There is no public interest or public domain defence available on the facts. The non-disclosure order is necessary and proportionate to protect the claimant's rights pending trial.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 850
Parties
Claimant: Tulisa Contostavlos; First Defendant: Michael Mendahun; Second Defendant: Any person in possession or control of the material referred to in Schedule 2 of the Order of Mr Justice Tugendhat dated 20 March 2012; Third Defendant: Justin Edwards
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Privacy Injunction Application / Interim Application for Continuation of Non Disclosure Order
Outcome
Non-disclosure order continued until trial or further order
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure Orders, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Sexual Images, Interim Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Non Disclosure Orders Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Sexual Images Interim Injunctions Article 8 ECHR +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tulisa Contostavlos

Claimant

Michael Mendahun

First Defendant

Any person in possession or control of the material referred to in Schedule 2 of the Order of Mr Justice Tugendhat dated 20 March 2012

Second Defendant

Justin Edwards

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Privacy Injunction Application / Interim Application for Continuation of Non Disclosure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the sexual video footage
  2. 2 Whether a non-disclosure order should be continued pending trial
  3. 3 Whether publication of the footage can be justified by public interest or public domain arguments

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the sexual video footage, and the continued publication or disclosure of such material would be a serious and unjustified intrusion. There is no public interest or public domain defence available on the facts. The non-disclosure order is necessary and proportionate to protect the claimant's rights pending trial.

Court Disposition

Non-disclosure order continued until trial or further order

Orders

  • Prohibition on publication or disclosure of any film or video of the claimant engaged in a sexual act or any part thereof or stills therefrom
  • Limitation of access to documents