Terry v Persons Unknown (Rev 1)

Terry v Persons Unknown (Rev 1)

The application for an interim injunction is refused because the applicant has not satisfied the court that he is likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed; the nub of the claim is protection of reputation, engaging the rule in Bonnard v Perryman, and damages would be an adequate remedy. There is insufficient evidence of a real threat to publish sensitive details or photographs, insufficient full and frank disclosure, and unjustified derogations from open justice and procedural rules.

Parties
Applicant: John Terry; Respondent: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Freedom of Expression, Open Justice, Public Interest Defence, Anonymity Orders, Interim Injunctions
Privacy Law Defamation Civil Procedure Human Rights Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Freedom of Expression Open Justice +3 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 8 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Terry

Applicant

Persons Unknown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain publication of private information relating to the applicant's personal relationship
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed under misuse of private information or breach of confidence
  3. 3 Whether the rule in Bonnard v Perryman applies to preclude an injunction where the nub of the claim is protection of reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an interim injunction is refused because the applicant has not satisfied the court that he is likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed; the nub of the claim is protection of reputation, engaging the rule in Bonnard v Perryman, and damages would be an adequate remedy. There is insufficient evidence of a real threat to publish sensitive details or photographs, insufficient full and frank disclosure, and unjustified derogations from open justice and procedural rules.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused