Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1309 (QB) (23 May 2011)

Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1309 (QB) (23 May 2011)

The injunction was varied to permit identification of Sir Frederick Goodwin as the applicant, as he no longer opposed this, but the prohibitions on identifying the lady involved and details of the relationship remained in force due to lack of evidence supporting public interest arguments and the absence of notice to the lady. The court found no evidence of a breach of corporate governance or other public interest justifying further disclosure, and emphasised the need to protect the rights of those not present or notified.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1309 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sir Frederick Goodwin; Defendant: News Group Newspapers Ltd; Intervenor: MGN Ltd; Intervenor: Associated Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Privacy Injunction Application / Variation of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Injunction varied
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Anonymity Orders, Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy, Public Interest, Corporate Governance
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Injunctions Anonymity Orders Freedom of Expression Right to Privacy Public Interest +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir Frederick Goodwin

Claimant

News Group Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

MGN Ltd

Intervenor

Associated Newspapers Ltd

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Privacy Injunction Application / Variation of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction prohibiting publication of information identifying the claimant and details of his relationship should be discharged or varied in light of parliamentary identification and public interest arguments.

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was varied to permit identification of Sir Frederick Goodwin as the applicant, as he no longer opposed this, but the prohibitions on identifying the lady involved and details of the relationship remained in force due to lack of evidence supporting public interest arguments and the absence of notice to the lady. The court found no evidence of a breach of corporate governance or other public interest justifying further disclosure, and emphasised the need to protect the rights of those not present or notified.

Court Disposition

Injunction varied

Orders

  • Prohibition on identifying Sir Frederick Goodwin as the applicant lifted.
  • Prohibitions on identifying the lady involved and details of the relationship (other than her being a work colleague) remain in force.