PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd

PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd

The Supreme Court held that, despite widespread internet and foreign publication, the qualitative difference and greater intrusiveness of unrestricted publication in the English media justified the continuation of the interim injunction. There was no public interest in the legal sense in publication, and the privacy rights of the appellant, his partner, and especially their children, outweighed the respondent's Article 10 rights. The injunction continued to serve a useful purpose and damages would not be an adequate remedy. The appeal was allowed and the injunction continued until trial or further order.

Parties
Appellant: PJS; Respondent: News Group Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Discharging Interim Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interim injunction continued until trial or further order.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Misuse of Private Information, Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy, Children's Rights, Public Interest Defence
Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Misuse of Private Information Freedom of Expression Right to Privacy Children's Rights +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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJS

Appellant

News Group Newspapers Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Discharging Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction restraining publication of private information should be continued pending trial despite widespread internet disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to balancing Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (expression) rights under the Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the existence of internet and foreign publication renders an injunction futile or disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, despite widespread internet and foreign publication, the qualitative difference and greater intrusiveness of unrestricted publication in the English media justified the continuation of the interim injunction. There was no public interest in the legal sense in publication, and the privacy rights of the appellant, his partner, and especially their children, outweighed the respondent's Article 10 rights. The injunction continued to serve a useful purpose and damages would not be an adequate remedy. The appeal was allowed and the injunction continued until trial or further order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interim injunction continued until trial or further order.

Orders

  • The interim injunction restraining publication of the applicant's identity and private information is continued until trial or further order.
  • Permission to appeal granted.