Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 239 (QB) (15 February 2012)

Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 239 (QB) (15 February 2012)

The claimant established a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, and the balance of rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR fell in favour of granting an interim injunction restraining publication. The court refused anonymity, holding that open justice required the parties to be named, as sufficient protection was provided by restricting publication of the private information itself.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 239 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Spelman (a Child by his Litigation Friends Mark Spelman and Caroline Spelman); Defendant: Express Newspapers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Interim Non Disclosure Injunction Application / Interim Relief Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunction granted restraining publication of private information; application for anonymity refused; permission to appeal on anonymity refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Open Justice, Anonymity, Confidential Information
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Open Justice Anonymity +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Spelman (a Child by his Litigation Friends Mark Spelman and Caroline Spelman)

Claimant

Express Newspapers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Non Disclosure Injunction Application / Interim Relief Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining publication of private information
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be anonymized to protect the claimant's identity

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant established a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information, and the balance of rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR fell in favour of granting an interim injunction restraining publication. The court refused anonymity, holding that open justice required the parties to be named, as sufficient protection was provided by restricting publication of the private information itself.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted restraining publication of private information; application for anonymity refused; permission to appeal on anonymity refused.

Orders

  • Interim non-disclosure injunction restraining publication of specified private information granted.
  • Return date set for 16 February 2012.