PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors

PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors

The claimant failed to satisfy the court that he was likely to succeed at trial in his claim for misuse of private information. The court held that there was sufficient general, public interest in publishing a report of the proceedings identifying the claimant and the normally reportable details to justify any resulting curtailment of his and his family's right to respect for private and family life. The principle of open justice and the Article 10 rights of the press outweighed the claimant's Article 8 rights in the circumstances. The information had been mentioned in open court, and the evidence did not support a further restriction. The application for a non-disclosure order was...

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
Civil / Application for Interim Non Disclosure (privacy Injunction) Order
Outcome
Application for interim non-disclosure (privacy injunction) order dismissed
Legal Topics
Privacy Injunctions, Open Justice, Reporting Restrictions, Misuse of Private Information, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Privacy Injunctions Open Justice Reporting Restrictions Misuse of Private Information 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 5 Authorities cited 19 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

Civil / Application for Interim Non Disclosure (privacy Injunction) Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim non-disclosure (privacy injunction) order restraining publication of information identifying him as a person arrested in connection with a child abuse investigation and as the subject of reporting restriction orders;
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's Article 8 rights to private and family life outweigh the Article 10 rights of the press and the principle of open justice in the circumstances;
  3. 3 Whether the information in question remains private after being mentioned in open court;

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to satisfy the court that he was likely to succeed at trial in his claim for misuse of private information. The court held that there was sufficient general, public interest in publishing a report of the proceedings identifying the claimant and the normally reportable details to justify any resulting curtailment of his and his family's right to respect for private and family life. The principle of open justice and the Article 10 rights of the press outweighed the claimant's Article 8 rights in the circumstances. The information had been mentioned in open court, and the evidence did not support a further restriction. The application for a non-disclosure order was...

Court Disposition

Application for interim non-disclosure (privacy injunction) order dismissed

Orders

  • Application for a non-disclosure order is dismissed.
  • The heading of the judgment to remain anonymised until the claimant's application for permission to appeal is determined, and, if permission is granted, until further order of the Court of Appeal.