Ntuli v Donald

Ntuli v Donald

The substantive injunction restraining publication of intimate, personal, or sexually explicit details about the relationship was justified based on Mr Donald's reasonable expectation of privacy, but the orders for anonymisation and non-disclosure (superinjunction) were not necessary and should be discharged. The terms of the injunction were sufficiently clear, and the costs order was not interfered with.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Adakini Ntuli; Respondent/claimant: Howard Donald; Intervener: Guardian News & Media Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Injunction Order
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as to substantive injunction; appeal allowed as to superinjunction and anonymity.
Legal Topics
Superinjunctions, Anonymity Orders, Freedom of Expression, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 Rights, Costs Orders
Privacy Law Media Law Human Rights Superinjunctions Anonymity Orders Freedom of Expression Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adakini Ntuli

Appellant/defendant

Howard Donald

Respondent/claimant

Guardian News & Media Ltd

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Injunction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an injunction restraining publication of confidential information about a relationship should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the injunction are sufficiently clear
  3. 3 Whether the injunction should extend to anonymisation and non-disclosure of the proceedings (superinjunction)

Ratio Decidendi

The substantive injunction restraining publication of intimate, personal, or sexually explicit details about the relationship was justified based on Mr Donald's reasonable expectation of privacy, but the orders for anonymisation and non-disclosure (superinjunction) were not necessary and should be discharged. The terms of the injunction were sufficiently clear, and the costs order was not interfered with.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as to substantive injunction; appeal allowed as to superinjunction and anonymity.

Orders

  • Substantive injunction restraining publication of confidential information remains.
  • Orders for anonymisation and non-disclosure of the proceedings are discharged.