An unprecedented superinjunction prevented the media, Parliament and the public from discovering a data breach for more than 600 days. The court order was finally lifted at the High Court on Tuesday, marking what is believed to be the first time the Government has sought such an order against the media.
The extraordinary case involved journalists from multiple media organisations, including the Daily Mail, Global and PA news agency, who were barred from publishing any reference to proceedings about the data breach. The superinjunction also prevented journalists from discussing the case with colleagues who were not part of the proceedings, as well as members of the public.
Understanding court injunctions
An injunction is a court order to either prevent someone from doing something or direct them to do it. They can be used in various contexts, including family and civil courts, and can prevent publishing information or naming people.
Injunctions can be temporary, known as interim injunctions, or longer term - either until a future date or until a further order is made. Breaching an injunction can be considered contempt of court, which can be punished by up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine.
What makes injunctions 'super'
The vast majority of injunctions referred to in the media are plain injunctions - their existence can be reported but their subjects cannot be identified. However, a superinjunction means that their very existence is supposed to be unreportable.
In 2018, the Daily Telegraph published a front page story about a "scandal which cannot be revealed" after businessman Sir Philip Green obtained an injunction against the newspaper preventing it from publishing misconduct allegations. The newspaper was able to publish the story without naming Sir Philip because he had not obtained a superinjunction.
Government's unprecedented legal move
This case marked several firsts in British legal history. It is thought this was the first time the Government has sought such an order against the media, making it unprecedented in scope and origin.
The length of proceedings also made this case unique. Court documents show the Ministry of Defence originally asked for the superinjunction to last approximately four months, however it took more than two years for the order to be lifted after it was made in September 2023.
Worldwide coverage and jurisdiction
This superinjunction was made "against the world", meaning any third parties who became aware of the proceedings were covered by the order. However, injunctions are limited to the jurisdiction of the court - in this case, England and Wales.
A report of the Committee on Superinjunctions, set up in 2010, said it was rare for superinjunctions to be applied for, and "even rarer for them to be granted on anything other than an anti-tipping-off, short-term basis". Injunctions can be against named people and organisations or "persons unknown" committing certain acts, often seen in cases related to groups of protesters or anonymous hackers.
Celebrity superinjunction history
One of the earliest known applications for a superinjunction dates back to 2009 when oil traders Trafigura attempted to use one to prevent The Guardian from reporting on allegations that the company was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast. Footballer John Terry was granted a superinjunction, which was lifted in January 2010, allowing him to be named in connection with reports about his private life involving an affair with the ex-girlfriend of former Chelsea teammate Wayne Bridge.
In November 2010, the Court of Appeal lifted a superinjunction preventing the naming of Take That's Howard Donald, who was granted an order restraining publication of confidential information by a former girlfriend. In 2011, Ryan Giggs was named in Parliament as having obtained a superinjunction preventing the News of the World from identifying him as the footballer who had an affair with reality TV star Imogen Thomas.
Current legal landscape
Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for members of both Houses of Parliament to allow them to perform their duties without interference from outside of the House. In 2016, a celebrity known only as PJS won a Supreme Court battle to keep an injunction barring The Sun on Sunday from identifying him in connection with alleged extra-marital sexual activities, even though his name can be found on the internet.
The very nature of superinjunctions means their existence should not be known, making the true number currently in effect difficult to determine. In April last year, Lord Bellamy, then parliamentary under secretary of state in the Ministry of Justice, replied to a written question in the House of Lords stating there was "one superinjunction in force which was made in the King's Bench Division of the High Court".
(PA) Note: This article has been edited with the help of Artificial Intelligence.
