Hutcheson v Popdog Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1580 (19 December 2011)

Hutcheson v Popdog Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1580 (19 December 2011)

Permission to appeal is refused because the appeal is academic as between the parties, the issues are not of outstanding public importance, the respondent opposes and would be prejudiced on costs, and the prospect of varying the costs order is too uncertain to justify an appeal.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1580
Parties
Appellant: Christopher Hutcheson; Respondent: Popdog Limited; Additional Party: News Group Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Non Disclosure Orders, Contempt of Court, Costs Orders, Academic Appeals, Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Interim Injunctions Non Disclosure Orders Contempt of Court Costs Orders Academic Appeals +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Hutcheson

Appellant

Popdog Limited

Respondent

News Group Newspapers Limited

Additional Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted where the appeal is academic between the parties
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction continues to bind third parties after settlement between the original parties
  3. 3 Whether the 'Spycatcher principle' applies to final injunctions as well as interim injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is refused because the appeal is academic as between the parties, the issues are not of outstanding public importance, the respondent opposes and would be prejudiced on costs, and the prospect of varying the costs order is too uncertain to justify an appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused