England and Wales Case Law

Cynthia Nkiruka Tooley MBE v Times Media Limited

The essential purpose of the interim injunction application was to protect the claimant's reputation, so the defamation rule applied. The claimant failed to show the statements were unarguably defamatory or that there were no grounds for a defence. The Norwich Pharmacal order was refused because the claimant had not established necessity, having not taken reasonable steps to confirm the source, and the strong protection of journalistic sources should not be overridden.

Source excerpt

• Interim injunctions
• Norwich pharmacal orders
• Misuse of private information
• Breach of confidence
• Defamation
• Malicious falsehood

Read case analysis

Tooley v Times Media Ltd

Tooley v Times Media Ltd [2026] EWHC 675 (KB) (23 March 2026)

The High Court refused an interim injunction and a Norwich Pharmacal order in a media dispute, holding the applications were driven by reputational harm and lacking necessity.

• Interim injunctions
• Norwich pharmacal orders
• Misuse of private information
• Breach of confidence
• Defamation
• Malicious falsehood

Read case analysis

Paul Sculfor & Ors v MGN Limited

The High Court decided a limitation preliminary issue in five MGN phone-hacking/UIG claims, holding one claimant timely and four claims statute-barred.

• Limitation period
• Deliberate concealment
• Phone hacking
• Unlawful information gathering
• Worthwhile claim
• Solicitor advice

Read case analysis

Al-Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Al-Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2026] EWHC 119 (KB) (26 January 2026)

The High Court granted summary judgment for Ghanem Al-Masarir against Saudi Arabia for spyware hacking, harassment, trespass to goods and assault, awarding damages and costs.

• Misuse of private information
• Harassment
• Trespass to goods
• Assault
• State immunity
• Surveillance

Read case analysis

Feldman & Ors v Gambling Commission

Feldman & Ors v Gambling Commission [2026] EWHC 76 (KB) (19 January 2026)

The High Court dismissed claims for misuse of private information and breach of confidence arising from 888’s 2023 RNS and a 2024 Gambling Commission statement.

• Misuse of private information
• Breach of confidence
• Regulatory disclosure
• Public interest defence
• Data protection
• Injunctions

Read case analysis

Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2026] EWHC 548 (KB) (13 January 2026)

The High Court dismissed a Norwich Pharmacal application against The Guardian, holding it was only a recipient of information and not mixed up in any wrongdoing.

• Norwich pharmacal orders
• Journalistic source protection
• Breach of confidence
• Misuse of private information
• Defamation
• Malicious falsehood

Read case analysis

Barts Health NHS Trust v Persons Unknown

Barts Health NHS Trust v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 3230 (KB) (08 December 2025)

The High Court granted without-notice interim injunctions after a cyberattack on an NHS trust, aimed at preventing disclosure, further access, and misuse of exfiltrated data.

• Cyberattack
• Breach of confidence
• Interim injunctions
• Service out of jurisdiction
• Open justice
• Confidentiality orders

Read case analysis

Michael Johnson v His Majesty's Attorney-General

The court held that publication of the deceased's will would be both undesirable and inappropriate under Rule 58 of the NCPR due to the real and immediate risk of serious physical harm or death to the applicant and others named in the will, given the deceased's notoriety and history of threats. None of the usual public interest factors in favour of publication applied, and the applicant's rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8 ECHR further supported sealing the will.

Source excerpt

• Sealing of wills
• Public inspection of probate documents
• Articles 2, 3, and 8 echr
• Risk to life and safety
• Balancing privacy and open justice

Read case analysis

Edward Johnson v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police

The application for anonymity and reporting restrictions is dismissed because the claimant has not provided clear and cogent evidence that derogations from open justice are necessary or proportionate to protect his Article 8 or 14 rights. The default position of open justice is strengthened by the public interest in the issues raised, and the claimant's vulnerabilities do not justify departure from this principle. Embarrassment or distress from publicity is not sufficient reason for anonymity, and reporting restrictions cannot be imposed as the claimant's name has already been used in open co…

Source excerpt

• Anonymity orders
• Open justice
• Misuse of private information
• Reporting restrictions
• Article 8 echr
• Article 10 echr

Read case analysis

Feldman & Anor v Gambling Commission

Feldman & Anor v Gambling Commission [2025] EWHC 3117 (KB) (26 November 2025)

The High Court granted a reporting restriction order postponing reports of parts of a civil trial to avoid prejudice to pending criminal proceedings.

• Restricting reporting orders
• Open justice
• Disclosure
• Misuse of private information
• Breach of confidence
• Restricting-reporting-order

Read case analysis