• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Another English injunction

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Slugmonster

Very Active
Member
An England player has won a continuation of a High Court gagging order preventing the "misuse" of private information about him.

The ruling was made by Mr Justice Kenneth Parker, sitting in London.

An injunction was originally granted by a different judge to the unnamed star on August 19, blocking publication of allegations about his private life.

The move came shortly after another England international star was granted a similar court order. Neither of the footballers can be named under the terms of the orders.

Today's decision means that the injunction granted on August 19 continues until trial of the action or further order.

The case - listed in the anonymised form of ZXC v BNM - was heard in private, but lawyers confirmed afterwards that the order had been continued by the judge.

Before the proceedings went into private session, Hugh Tomlinson QC, for the footballer, told the judge that an injunction was granted on August 19 "to prevent the misuse of private information".

He stressed that it was not a super-injunction.

Mr Tomlinson added: "It is an injunction which does not seek to conceal its own identity, but seeks to conceal the identity of the claimant and the defendant because it is an injunction which relates to private information."

The QC then applied for the hearing to be held in private.

Mr Tomlinson told the judge that publicity would "defeat the object of the hearing" as the case involved confidential information - confidentiality would be "damaged" if the proceedings were held in open court.

Granting that application, the judge said he had considered the matter and had decided it was "an appropriate case to be heard in private".

Concern has been mounting about the use of injunctions to stop reporting of potentially embarrassing revelations.

There was outrage last year after an injunction granted to the Swiss multinational Trafigura appeared to restrict what MPs could say in Parliament.

Chelsea captain John Terry was granted an injunction - later overturned - preventing reporting of information about his alleged affair with Vanessa Perroncel, the former partner of his ex-England and Chelsea team-mate Wayne Bridge.


Anyone reckon Stevie could be one of the 2? Given al the rumours that were flying around at the end of last season and the fact that he hasnt been included in tonights squad because he's apparently injured?
 
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=41610.msg1162588#msg1162588 date=1282824271]
The Gerrard/ Curran/ Teen pregnancy stories are a load of bollocks
[/quote]

TOTAL bollocks.
 
haha, type in Steven Gerrard into google, and the search list brings up Ronnie Whelans daughter.
 
I saw a similar article yesterday and it mentioned that it was the second time this week an England international had been in court seeking an injunction to stop publication of something.
 
What is the legal justification in this?

Surely the freedom of the press means they should be able to print whatever the fuck they like provided it doesnt put a life in danger directly or threaten the country's interest in some way?
 
I actually don't quite get this.

The press are free to print any bullshit they like, whether or not it's true in many instances.

Why the injunction in this case?
 
I read an article last weekend where it said that the press are not allowed to print personal details about ordinary joe soaps, unless of course the have broken the law, as it would impinge on their personal lives. However they do have the right to do so in the case of people who are in the public eye.

These injunctions are being taken out as the celebrities in question are claiming that should have the same protection as joe soap basically.

If that makes any sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom