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

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

The claimant was entitled to an interim injunction restraining publication of the private information because the information attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy, the harm to the claimant outweighed the public interest in publication, and the 'more likely than not' test for interim relief was satisfied. Anonymity was refused as open justice principles required parties to be named, and sufficient protection was afforded by restricting publication of the subject matter rather than anonymizing the proceedings.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 239
Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Spelman; Defendant: Express Newspapers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interim Relief Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunction granted; anonymity refused; permission to appeal on anonymity refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Non Disclosure Orders, Article 8 ECHR, Open Justice, Anonymity, Freedom of Expression
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Interim Non Disclosure Orders Article 8 ECHR Open Justice Anonymity Freedom of Expression

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Spelman

Claimant

Express Newspapers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim 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

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was entitled to an interim injunction restraining publication of the private information because the information attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy, the harm to the claimant outweighed the public interest in publication, and the 'more likely than not' test for interim relief was satisfied. Anonymity was refused as open justice principles required parties to be named, and sufficient protection was afforded by restricting publication of the subject matter rather than anonymizing the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted; anonymity refused; permission to appeal on anonymity refused.

Orders

  • Interim non-disclosure injunction restraining publication of private information granted.
  • Parties to be named; anonymity refused.