Turns out there weren’t that many super-injunctions after all

20 May 2011 by

Lord Neuberger has published his long-awaited report on super-injunctions. His committee was set up in April 2010 in order to “examine the issues around the use of injunctions which bind the press and so-called ‘super-injunctions“.

In summary, the report emphasises the principles of open justice and the right to freedom of speech, and that courts should “ensure that any derogation from open justice is the minimum necessary to secure the proper administration of justice”. It recommends that Civil Procedure Rule 39.2 (concerning public hearings) should be amended to make reference to the strict necessity test.

Whilst the report makes recommendations and tweaks to the current practice directions, it makes clear at the outset that

It is not… the function of this Committee or this report, and indeed it would be inappropriate for this report, to express a view on these important issues of substantive law and policy… The establishment of a Commission to examine a British Bill of Rights may well prove to be a forum or catalyst for considering the substantive law in this area

Super-injunction are court orders enforcing a person’s privacy in relation to a particular issue. What sets them apart from ordinary injunctions is that their very existence cannot be reported by the press. And

until early 2010, there were justifiable concerns that a form of permanent secret justice was beginning to develop. However, that concern should be dispelled by the decision in the Terry case.

The John Terry case imposed a requirement that

super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions must generally contain a return date ensures that such injunctions cannot in practice become permanent, save in the very, very rare cases where it may be justified

Since January 2010, contrary to speculation in the media and on Twitter, the Neuberger committee only found evidence of two such injunctions granted. They are “rarely applied and rarely granted”. The committee reminds us that courts have a discretion which is “without limit” and which can be exercised in support of any legal right or the application of equitable principles. Nevertheless, the committee recommends that any open-ended super-injunctions (that is, those which don’t have an end-date) should be reported to the courts.

But not all injunctions are super, and in fact most of the injunctions which bother the media and public are not super at all. On the connected and also controversial issue of the law of privacy and the correct balance between the sometimes competing human rights to privacy and freedom of expression, the committee has published draft practice guidance for interim non-disclosure orders, or gagging orders as they have been called (see page 89).

The committee also sensibly recommends the collection of court data by the Ministry of Justice and the Courts and tribunal service, to be published annually. This should at least serve to cool allegations of an unknown mass of secret injunctions created by judges not subject to public scrutiny.

As to the vexed issue of MPs breaching existing super-injunctions in Parliament, most notably in the Trafigura case, the courts and Parliament should “consider the feasibility of a streamlined system for answering sub judice queries from the Speakers’ offices“. In other words, a mechanism whereby MPs can find out about super-injunctions without necessarily breaching them. Whether this will keep MPs such as John Hemming from campaigning against injunctions remains to be seen.

On “hyper-injunctions”, a term which Hemming has coined to describe injunctions restricting a constituent from revealing an injunction to their MP, “No super-injunction, or any other court order, could conceivably restrict or prohibit Parliamentary debate or proceedings.” In other words, this is an issue which will have to be left to Parliament, who contrary to some MPs’ views, still set the law of the land.

Super-injunctions  have become an important public issue as a result of the irresistible combination of secrecy paid for by sporting celebrities and a concerted media campaign against the so-called gagging orders. The Prime Minister has even expressed his unease about the rise of “a sort of privacy law”. A number of people have allegedly broken the injunctions on Twitter, complicating the debate further.

Almost alone in the debate, a number of legal bloggers have asked whether scrapping the right to privacy, which developed by the common law but was then incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act, would truly be a victory for freedom of speech.

Lord Neuberger’s report, on an initial reading, is characteristically balanced and practical. It emphasises that judges did not invent privacy law, but rather that it was the Human Rights Act, as passed by Parliament in 1998. It recommends practical ways in which fears of open-ended privacy injunctions can be allayed, although it goes nowhere near recommending that judges’ discretion to grant such orders should be constrained. The report will hopefully deflate some of the media hype surrounding injunctions, although it is unlikely to hold back the wider debate on privacy law. Perhaps the Bill of Rights Committee, due to report by the end of 2012, will have more to say on this super-hot but probably overinflated topic.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. Mr BD says:

    Very interesting indeed!

    In my own case, Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, Sir Nicholas Wall REFUSED to give permission for the GENERAL arguments and scientific evidence challenging judge-made law (Payne v Payne) to be made public.

    One wonders what Lord Neuberger would make of that?

    Families Need Fathers’ Director of Communications said, that, due to comtempt of court: “we cannot comment on the arguments that the father presented which were not addressed by Wall in his judgment.”


    So, Wall “omitted” all reference to these general arguments and scientific evidence from his judgment, and he refused to give permission for them to be made public. Whose interests did Wall’s “secrecy” order serve???

    In the interests of child welfare, I published the general arguments and scientific evidence regardless, thereby risking ‘contempt of court’ charges.



    Mr BD

  2. tara Davison says:

    Thank you Lord Neuberger for deflating the over egged debate on privacy and injunctions.

    If the press and Bloggers were reasonable men they would only need to consider how they would feel if someone wrote about them in the way they are writing about fellow human beings whom they do not know.

    I hope those who are considering a Bill of Rights will consider bringing back Criminal Libel to assist those who cannot afford the costs of Lawyers and injunctions to protect their privacy and safety.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: