Terry v Persons Unknown (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 119 (QB) (29 January 2010)

Terry v Persons Unknown (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 119 (QB) (29 January 2010)

The applicant failed to satisfy the court that he was likely to establish at trial that publication of the fact of the relationship (and possibly some relatively unintrusive details) should not be allowed, as required by s.12(3) HRA 1998. The evidence did not support a real threat to publish intrusive details or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 119 (QB)
Parties
Applicant: John Terry; Respondent: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interim Application Before Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Freedom of Expression, Open Justice, Interim Injunctions, Anonymity Orders, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Defamation, Procedural Derogations
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Law Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Freedom of Expression Open Justice Interim Injunctions +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Terry

Applicant

Persons Unknown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Interim Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain publication of information about the applicant's private life
  2. 2 Whether the derogations from open justice and procedural rules sought are justified
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is likely to succeed at trial in establishing misuse of private information or breach of confidence

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to satisfy the court that he was likely to establish at trial that publication of the fact of the relationship (and possibly some relatively unintrusive details) should not be allowed, as required by s.12(3) HRA 1998. The evidence did not support a real threat to publish intrusive details or photographs. The derogations from open justice and procedural rules sought were not justified on the evidence. Accordingly, the interim injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction dismissed
  • No order for anonymity or sealing of the court file beyond what is necessary for this judgment