Spelman v Express Newspapers

Spelman v Express Newspapers

The claimant established a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information and met the threshold for an interim injunction under the 'more likely than not' test. The balance of rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR favoured granting the injunction. However, the circumstances did not justify anonymizing the proceedings, as open justice required the parties to be named and sufficient protection was afforded by restricting publication of the private information.

Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Spelman; Defendant: Express Newspapers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Application for Non Disclosure Injunction
Outcome
Interim non-disclosure injunction granted; application for anonymity refused; permission to appeal on anonymity refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Non Disclosure Orders, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Open Justice, Anonymity of Parties
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Non Disclosure Orders Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Open Justice +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Spelman

Claimant

Express Newspapers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Application for Non Disclosure Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim non-disclosure injunction to restrain 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 met the threshold for an interim injunction under the 'more likely than not' test. The balance of rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR favoured granting the injunction. However, the circumstances did not justify anonymizing the proceedings, as open justice required the parties to be named and sufficient protection was afforded by restricting publication of the private information.

Court Disposition

Interim non-disclosure injunction granted; application for anonymity refused; permission to appeal on anonymity refused.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from publishing the specified private information pending return date.
  • Claimant's litigation friends to issue and serve claim form and application notice by specified deadline.