Secretary of State for Defence v Persons Unknown

Secretary of State for Defence v Persons Unknown

The super-injunction was continued for four weeks because disclosure of its existence or the underlying information posed a real risk to the lives of thousands whose identities were compromised in the dataset. Discharging the 'super' element would not significantly enhance public scrutiny and could unravel protection, given the risk of hostile parties inferring sensitive details. The balance of interests favored continued secrecy, subject to strict review and case management.

Parties
Claimant: Secretary of State for Defence; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Injunction / Interim Order, Review Hearing
Outcome
super-injunction continued for four weeks, subject to review
Legal Topics
Super Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Open Justice, National Security, Data Protection, Prior Restraint
Constitutional Law Media Law Human Rights Super Injunctions Freedom of Expression Open Justice National Security Data Protection +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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for Defence

Claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction / Interim Order, Review Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a super-injunction contra mundum should be continued to prevent disclosure of a sensitive dataset breach
  2. 2 Balancing risk to life and national security against public interest in open justice and freedom of expression
  3. 3 Applicability of closed material procedures and special advocate regime in non-adversarial proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The super-injunction was continued for four weeks because disclosure of its existence or the underlying information posed a real risk to the lives of thousands whose identities were compromised in the dataset. Discharging the 'super' element would not significantly enhance public scrutiny and could unravel protection, given the risk of hostile parties inferring sensitive details. The balance of interests favored continued secrecy, subject to strict review and case management.

Court Disposition

super-injunction continued for four weeks, subject to review

Orders

  • Super-injunction contra mundum continued for four weeks
  • Further return date set for 1 December 2023