Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 392 (QB) (24 February 2012)

The court must ensure that proceedings involving non-disclosure orders progress promptly to minimize interference with Article 10 rights, and cannot defer to party autonomy as in ordinary litigation; extensions of time should not be granted lightly.

Citation: [2012] EWHC 392
Parties: Claimant: Jonathan Spelman; Defendant: Express Newspapers
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 24 February 2012
Procedural Posture: Privacy Injunction Application / Post Interim Injunction, Directions Hearing
Outcome: Application for continuation of non-disclosure injunction dismissed; directions for further conduct of proceedings given.
Legal Topics: Non Disclosure Orders, Freedom of Expression, Active Case Management, Article 10 ECHR

Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Non Disclosure Orders Freedom of Expression Active Case Management Article 10 ECHR

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Jonathan Spelman

Claimant

Express Newspapers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Privacy Injunction Application / Post Interim Injunction, Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether to grant an extension of time for service of Particulars of Claim in a privacy injunction case
2 How to balance the prompt progression of privacy claims with the rights under Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for continuation of non-disclosure injunction dismissed; directions for further conduct of proceedings given.

Orders

Claimant to serve Particulars of Claim by 4pm on 28 February 2012 (noting extension to 9 March by consent)
Defence to be served by 12 March 2012