AMM v News Group Newspapers

Judgment

Mr Justice Stewart:

By Order dated 29 November 2014 publication of any information as to the subject matter of these proceedings or the identity of the Applicant shall be limited to that contained in this judgment.

On 29 November 2014 I granted an injunction to restrain publication of private information together with ancillary orders.

The Applicant is an individual and the Defendant is the publisher of the Sun on Sunday. The Applicant applied for an injunction to restrain publication of the information concerning a sexual relationship that the Applicant had in 2011. I granted the injunction, after a hearing on Saturday, 29 November 2014, for a short period to allow for the filing of further evidence. The Respondent was willing to give an undertaking not to publish the information concerning the Applicant for 7 days but was not prepared to give that undertaking to the court; also, though not refusing the Applicant’s application for anonymity, the Respondent had not confirmed agreement to it. Directions have been given for a further hearing on 5 December 2014 or such date as the court can accommodate the hearing. The proceedings have been anonymised to protect the privacy interests and prevent the identification of the Applicant.

The court will decide at the next hearing whether and if so in what form any injunction should continue to restrain publication of the information.

It is apparent from the above that the Respondent had been notified of the application. I had regard to section 12 of the Human Rights Act ( HRA), section 12(2) requires the court not to grant relief against a Respondent who is neither present nor represented unless the court is satisfied (in this case) “That the Applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the Respondent”. I am satisfied as to this requirement. The Respondent had been notified that the Applicant was going to seek an injunction on Friday, 28 November 2014. I was told that at that stage the Respondent did not make any suggestions. On Saturday the Respondent was served with the evidence and draft application and a Skeleton Argument by the Applicant. The Respondent was also served with the draft/Order that the Applicant was seeking. There followed a number of emails. The ones I have seen are recorded in the Order. They were between the Applicant’s solicitors and the Respondent’s solicitors. In short the Respondent offered first not to publish any article regarding the matters referred to in the Applic