Spelman v Express Newspapers

Spelman v Express Newspapers

The claimant has not established that he is more likely than not to succeed at trial in showing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information sought to be restrained, nor that publication would not be justified in the public interest. Damages are an adequate remedy for any interference with privacy. It is not necessary or proportionate to continue the interim injunction.

Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Spelman; Litigation Friend: Mark Spelman; Litigation Friend: Caroline Spelman; Defendant: Express Newspapers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application for Continuation of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Children's Rights, Public Interest, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Children's Rights Public Interest Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Spelman

Claimant

Mark Spelman

Litigation Friend

Caroline Spelman

Litigation Friend

Express Newspapers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application for Continuation of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information sought to be restrained from publication
  2. 2 Whether publication of the information is justified in the public interest
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for any interference with privacy

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has not established that he is more likely than not to succeed at trial in showing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information sought to be restrained, nor that publication would not be justified in the public interest. Damages are an adequate remedy for any interference with privacy. It is not necessary or proportionate to continue the interim injunction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The interim injunction granted on 10 February is not continued.
  • No order restraining the defendant from publishing information about the claimant.