What is an Injunction?

Super or Hyper Injunctions (contra mundum), or Gagging orders are slang terms for court orders that prevent a party from doing something.

This is a good summary taken from lawblacks:

"An Injunction is an Order of the Court which requires a party to do or refrain from doing a certain act. Injunctions are imposed at the discretion of the Court where it is just and convenient to do so and where there is a serious issue to be tried. The Court will not grant an Injunction where damages would be an appropriate alternative.

There are three types of Injunction:-

Mandatory – requires a specific act to be done e.g. “you must remove that obstruction”
Prohibitory – requires a party to stop doing a specific act e.g. “you must not publish the libellous article”
Quia Timet – requires a party to act to prevent harm occurring in the future

Injunctions can be obtained at any time, including before proceedings have started or after a Judgment has been given. Injunctions can be obtained without notice to the other party if there are good reasons for this e.g. extreme urgency or a need of secrecy. Injunctions are remedies, not causes of action. Therefore, you cannot sue for an Injunction.

The Court will decide whether to grant an Injunction based on the Balance of Convenience test. The Court will weigh the interests of both parties and if one party would be unduly harmed by the making of an Injunction, the Court will refuse the Application."

This is what wikipedia says:

"is an order, sometimes a legal order by a court or government, other times a private order by an employer or other institution, restricting information or comment from being made public."

Another source is gillhams.

SPYCATCHER
The UK has been a country renowned for its freedom of speech and the best investigative journalism in the world. When 9/11 occurred, Americans went to UK based news organizations because they are trusted. But not anymore.

It has all got so much worse since the Human Rights Act 1998 and reference to the the Spycatcher case in 1987.

Although historically injunctions have been used to protect national interests and witnesses, celebrities are paying £50k to lawyers like Carter Ruck to stop media outlets reporting on their misdemeanors. This seems hypocritical when celebrities can milk the media and sell themselves to OK! magazine and then stop publication of often true events that may or may not be in the public interest. If a celebrity wins "Father of the Year" and is beating his wife, surely we should be allowed to know.

For a detailed analysis of a real injunction, read this Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/20/trafigura-anatomy-super-injunction

7 comments:

  1. "If a celebrity wins "Father of the Year" and is beating his wife, surely we should be allowed to know."

    You forgot the single most important part of this. WHY?

    I can understand why the public needs to know about a company dumping shitloads (npi) of toxic waste into the ocean. I can understand why the public needs to know that a local authority is acting unlawfully. I can understand why the public needs to know about an employer engaging in discriminatory behaviour. I cannot for the life of me understand why the public needs to know about someone's sexual preferences, an adopted child's real parents, or the private affairs of a family that may be on the brink of falling apart. So tell me why it is that you think the public has the right to intrude on these private matters - because that's the one single question that this blog has dodged over the last six weeks. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a blogger I have been served with an 'injunction order' and a 'reporting restriction order' which actually came via Wordpress, but were originated by Local Councils.

    Why is it that these superinjunctions, that protect the villains involved in child snatching, are not taken as seriously as those that involve celebrities?

    According to the Independent "Untold story of gagging orders" there are only 69 that relate to celebs and 264 that relate to child snatching! http://bit.ly/kPhKRn

    My Experience of Superinjunctions as a Blogger is on http://twishort.com/ac0gt

    ReplyDelete
  3. Redbridge Council & Trinity Catholic School Super-Injunction Against Whistle Blowing Employee Johnson Restricting Publication of Illegal Redundancy & Dismissal Employment Practices.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nothing from Johnson?
    BEFORE MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE
    FRIDAY, 23rd SEPTEMBER 2011
    IHQ/11/0556 LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE & ANR v JOHNSON
    He must have been silenced. Pity, when the council employment policies are so upright and fine. Here is the whistle blowing complaint:
    REDUNDANCY If the School dismissed Mr Johnson on the grounds of redundancy, this would be less clearly connected with any “disability” from which he is suffering than if the School dismissed him on capability grounds. A redundancy dismissal might therefore be the “safer” option as regards any disability discrimination claim Mr Johnson might seek to bring in respect of his dismissal, especially if Mr Johnson was made redundant as part of a wider redundancy exercise, or as part of a wider drive to cut costs at the school, which could be backed up with evidence.
    DISMISSAL ON THE GROUNDS OF CAPABILITY/MISCONDUCT The longer that Mr Johnson is absent from work, and the more likely it is that he will not return, the more reasonable it will be for the School to dismiss him on the grounds of capability.
    The council then excluded Johnson from work for a year. What a bunch of bastards.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why would the public want to know about someone's private life (even if they happen to be a celebrity) if by them having this information it could effectively make the situation worse for such celbrities, splitting up families and creating conflicts. We are all humans afterall, just because you earn 5mill+ per year does not mean you are not aloud to keep family and personal secrets, secret.

    ReplyDelete
  6. JOHNSON and REDBRIDGE COUNCIL latest;

    The court granted the Redbridge Council super injunction to prevent publication of the whistle blowing complaint by Johnson alleging criminal actions. And awarded costs of £80,000 against Johnson, who is unemployed, destitute, and in poor health, because Redbridge Council have not paid him any salary for over a year.

    Absolutely disgusting.

    Lord Blog knows all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If celebs make money from publicity i.e. selling themselves through the media, they should not really complain when something gets out that is not so flattering.
    Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.