AM v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 308 (QB) (23 February 2012)

AM v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 308 (QB) (23 February 2012)

The evidence established a strongly arguable case of harassment and intrusion into the applicant's private and family life by the media, justifying continuation of the interim injunction to restrain publication of identifying information and harassment, with the balance of rights favouring protection of the applicant under Article 8 ECHR and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 308
Parties
Applicant: AM; Respondent: News Group Newspapers Ltd; Respondent: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (interim Non Disclosure and Anti Harassment) / Interim Hearing on Continuation of Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction continued with amendments and permission to amend parties granted.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Non Disclosure Orders, Harassment, Protection of Private Life, Civil Procedure Rules
Media Law Privacy Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Non Disclosure Orders Harassment Protection of Private Life Civil Procedure Rules

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AM

Applicant

News Group Newspapers Ltd

Respondent

Persons Unknown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (interim Non Disclosure and Anti Harassment) / Interim Hearing on Continuation of Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction restraining publication of the applicant's identity and address and restraining harassment should be continued
  2. 2 Whether the order complies with the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Guidance on Interim Non-Disclosure Orders
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's rights under Article 8 ECHR outweigh media rights under Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established a strongly arguable case of harassment and intrusion into the applicant's private and family life by the media, justifying continuation of the interim injunction to restrain publication of identifying information and harassment, with the balance of rights favouring protection of the applicant under Article 8 ECHR and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued with amendments and permission to amend parties granted.

Orders

  • Prohibition on publishing or broadcasting the applicant's name and address.
  • Prohibition on publishing images likely to identify the applicant's address or showing occupiers/invitees at the address.