Ntuli v Donald [2010] EWCA Civ 1276 (16 November 2010)

Ntuli v Donald [2010] EWCA Civ 1276 (16 November 2010)

The injunction restraining publication of intimate, personal, or sexually explicit details about the relationship was justified as Mr Donald had a reasonable expectation of privacy in such information, and there was no countervailing public interest in disclosure. The terms of the injunction were sufficiently clear. However, the orders for anonymity and non-disclosure of the proceedings (superinjunction) were not necessary and should be discharged in favour of open justice. The costs order against Ms Ntuli was within the trial judge's discretion and not interfered with.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1276
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Adakini Ntuli; Respondent/claimant: Howard Donald; Intervener: Guardian News & Media Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Interim Injunction in Privacy/breach of Confidence Proceedings / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as to the substantive injunction; appeal allowed as to superinjunction and anonymity; costs order not disturbed.
Legal Topics
Superinjunctions, Anonymity Orders, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Open Justice, Interim Injunctions, Costs Orders
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Superinjunctions Anonymity Orders Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) Open Justice +2 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adakini Ntuli

Appellant/defendant

Howard Donald

Respondent/claimant

Guardian News & Media Ltd

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Interim Injunction in Privacy/breach of Confidence Proceedings / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction restraining publication of confidential information was justified
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the injunction were sufficiently clear
  3. 3 Whether the injunction should extend to the mere fact of the relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction restraining publication of intimate, personal, or sexually explicit details about the relationship was justified as Mr Donald had a reasonable expectation of privacy in such information, and there was no countervailing public interest in disclosure. The terms of the injunction were sufficiently clear. However, the orders for anonymity and non-disclosure of the proceedings (superinjunction) were not necessary and should be discharged in favour of open justice. The costs order against Ms Ntuli was within the trial judge's discretion and not interfered with.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as to the substantive injunction; appeal allowed as to superinjunction and anonymity; costs order not disturbed.

Orders

  • Substantive injunction restraining publication of confidential information remains in force.
  • Orders for anonymisation of the parties and non-disclosure of the application for and existence of the injunction are discharged.