Contostavlos v Mendahun

Contostavlos v Mendahun

The claimant is likely to establish at trial that publication of the sexual video footage should not be allowed due to her reasonable expectation of privacy, the intrusive nature of the material, and the absence of any legal basis for resisting a non-disclosure order. The interim non-disclosure order is continued to protect the claimant's privacy pending trial.

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
Civil / Interim Application for Continuation of Non Disclosure Order
Outcome
Interim non-disclosure order continued until trial or further order.
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure Orders, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Publication of Intimate Material, Interim Injunctions
Privacy Confidentiality Human Rights Non Disclosure Orders Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Publication of Intimate Material Interim Injunctions

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 5 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

Civil / Interim Application for Continuation of Non Disclosure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the sexual video footage
  2. 2 Whether publication or disclosure of the footage should be restrained by a non-disclosure order
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is likely to establish at trial that publication of the sexual video footage should not be allowed due to her reasonable expectation of privacy, the intrusive nature of the material, and the absence of any legal basis for resisting a non-disclosure order. The interim non-disclosure order is continued to protect the claimant's privacy pending trial.

Court Disposition

Interim non-disclosure order continued until trial or further order.

Orders

  • Prohibition of 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 and protection of hearing papers.