PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 3177 (QB) (22 October 2013)

PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 3177 (QB) (22 October 2013)

The claimant failed to satisfy the court that he was likely to succeed at trial in restraining publication. The court held that there was sufficient general, public interest in publishing reports identifying the claimant and normally reportable details to justify any curtailment of his and his family's privacy rights. The principle of open justice and the public's right to know outweighed the claimant's Article 8 rights, especially as the information had been mentioned in open court and no proceedings were pending or imminent.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3177
Parties
Claimant: PNM; Defendant: Times Newspapers Ltd; Defendant: Andrew Norfolk; Defendant: Newsquest (Oxfordshire and Wiltshire) Limited; Defendant: Ben Wilkinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2013
Procedural Posture
High Court Application for Interim Non Disclosure Order (privacy Injunction) / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Application for interim privacy injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Misuse of Private Information, Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Law Interim Injunctions Misuse of Private Information Reporting Restrictions Open Justice Article 8 ECHR +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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PNM

Claimant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Andrew Norfolk

Defendant

Newsquest (Oxfordshire and Wiltshire) Limited

Defendant

Ben Wilkinson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Application for Interim Non Disclosure Order (privacy Injunction) / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim privacy injunction restraining publication of information identifying him as a suspect in a police investigation.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information disclosed in open court.
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in open justice and reporting outweighs the claimant's Article 8 rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to satisfy the court that he was likely to succeed at trial in restraining publication. The court held that there was sufficient general, public interest in publishing reports identifying the claimant and normally reportable details to justify any curtailment of his and his family's privacy rights. The principle of open justice and the public's right to know outweighed the claimant's Article 8 rights, especially as the information had been mentioned in open court and no proceedings were pending or imminent.

Court Disposition

Application for interim privacy injunction refused.

Orders

  • No interim non-disclosure order granted.
  • Defendants not restrained from publishing reports identifying the claimant.