In an earlier post we mentioned a number of newspaper articles and postings about the John Terry “super-injunction” (pictured right). It continues to attract interesting and thoughtful comments from around the world.
From New Zealand, Steven Price’s interesting “Media Law Journal” blog has two posts discussing the case. First, there are his reflections on super-injunctions generally where, after expressing scepticism about the claim that there are 200-300 “super injunctions” in place, he concludes
“So… super-injunctions: bad. But we need more information before we thump the table too hard about them, I think”.
Second, in a post entitled “Another interesting thing about the Terry case”, he discusses the Bonnard v Perryman issues mentioned in the case.
The IT and e-commerce site Out-Law quotes Rosemary Jay (author of the definitive book on data protection) as saying that case was not “a privacy law U-turn”, but rather the refusal to grant the injunction had more to do with how the case was actually brought.
“The applicant faced a number of difficulties in bringing his case for an injunction. The applicant himself did not give any evidence or present evidence from the person with whom he had the relationship. So the Court had no evidence that the parties involved would suffer any distress from publication. The judge seemed to doubt that as he commented that the applicant appeared to have a robust personality.”
The full item can be found here.
We also draw attention to the following discussions of the case
- Steele’s law “John Terry: The boot on the other foot?“, by Tim Lowles.
- The article in the Solicitors’ Journal of 2 February “Terry ruling does not mark “sea change” in favour of press“
- And, from a non-legal perspective, we have Heresy Corner asking the question “Kiss n’ tells are here again?”