MNB v News Group Newspapers: Difference between revisions
←Created page with ''''MNB v News Group Newspapers''' is a English privacy law case case in which an individual successfully applied for a temporary injunction to prevent [[The Sun]...' |
Add banner {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. After at least 7 passes by @Citation bot since 20220821, this article still has 1 untagged bare URL ref |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Privacy law case}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
{{Cleanup bare URLs|date=August 2022}} |
|||
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} |
|||
{{italic title}} |
|||
| ⚫ | '''''MNB v News Group Newspapers''''' also known as '''''Goodwin v News Group Newspapers''''' is an English privacy law case in which then banker [[Fred Goodwin]] successfully applied for a temporary injunction to prevent ''[[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]]'' from publishing details about his private life.<ref>http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases.aspx?menu=main&pageid=42&caseid=370</ref> The injunction was breached by John Hemming MP in the House of Commons where the case was inaccurately referred to as a [[Super-injunctions in English law|super-injunction]]. |
||
==Breach of injunction== |
|||
On 10 March 2011, [[John Hemming (politician)|John Hemming]], a [[Backbencher|backbench]] Liberal Democrat MP, referred in Parliament (under [[parliamentary privilege]]) to the supposed existence of "a [[2011 British super-injunction controversy|superinjunction]] preventing [Goodwin] from being identified as a banker".<ref>''[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110310/debtext/110310-0001.htm#11031052001448 Hansard]'', HC 6ser vol 524 col 1069.</ref> As matters discussed in Parliament can be freely reported by the press, newspapers including ''[[The Guardian]]'',<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/mar/10/fred-goodwin-superinjunction-banking |location=London |work=The Guardian | first=Afua | last=Hirsch | title=Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker | date=10 March 2011}}</ref> ''[[The Independent]]'',<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mp-lifts-veil-on-fred-goodwin-superinjunction-2238351.html |location=London |work=The Independent |first=Jerome |last=Taylor |title=MP lifts veil on Fred Goodwin super-injunction |date=10 March 2011}}</ref> and ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'',<ref name=Telegraph110310>{{cite news| url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8373535/Sir-Fred-Goodwin-former-RBS-chief-obtains-super-injunction.html |location=London |work=The Daily Telegraph |first=Steven |last=Swinford |title=Sir Fred Goodwin, former RBS chief, obtains super-injunction |date=10 March 2011 |accessdate=3 May 2011}}</ref> reported that Goodwin had obtained such an injunction, while still remaining unable to explain what information the injunction restricted the publication of.<ref name=Telegraph110310/> |
|||
On 19 May 2011, [[Ben Stoneham, Baron Stoneham of Droxford|Lord Stoneham]], speaking in the [[House of Lords]], asked the Government "how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir [''sic''] Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague?"<ref>''[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110519-0001.htm#11051953000788 Hansard]'', HL 5ser vol 727 col 1490.</ref> Later that day, the [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] varied the order, allowing Goodwin's name to be published, but continued it in relation to the identity of the lady involved.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13453626|title=High Court lifts Sir Fred Goodwin anonymity injunctio|accessdate=19 May 2011|date=19 May 2011|publisher=BBC}}</ref> In his judgment, [[Mr Justice Tugendhat]] noted that the order had not been a superinjunction as it had been published in anonymised form on the [[British and Irish Legal Information Institute]] website. He also stated that the injunction had not prevented Goodwin being identified as a banker, but instead prevented the person applying for the injunction from being identified as a banker, and that this was done because "if the applicant were identified as a banker that would be likely to lead to his being named, which would defeat the purpose of granting him anonymity". The judge criticised press reporting of the case as including "misleading and inaccurate statements".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1309.html |title=''Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd'' |date=19 May 2011 |publisher=[[British and Irish Legal Information Institute]]}}</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
*''[[Fred Goodwin v News Group Newspapers and VBN]]'' [2011] EWHC 1437 (QB) |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
| Line 5: | Line 17: | ||
{{Privacy injunctions in English law}} |
{{Privacy injunctions in English law}} |
||
[[Category:English privacy case law]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 02:09, 30 August 2022
 |
MNB v News Group Newspapers also known as Goodwin v News Group Newspapers is an English privacy law case in which then banker Fred Goodwin successfully applied for a temporary injunction to prevent The Sun from publishing details about his private life.[1] The injunction was breached by John Hemming MP in the House of Commons where the case was inaccurately referred to as a super-injunction.
Breach of injunction
[edit]On 10 March 2011, John Hemming, a backbench Liberal Democrat MP, referred in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege) to the supposed existence of "a superinjunction preventing [Goodwin] from being identified as a banker".[2] As matters discussed in Parliament can be freely reported by the press, newspapers including The Guardian,[3] The Independent,[4] and The Daily Telegraph,[5] reported that Goodwin had obtained such an injunction, while still remaining unable to explain what information the injunction restricted the publication of.[5]
On 19 May 2011, Lord Stoneham, speaking in the House of Lords, asked the Government "how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir [sic] Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague?"[6] Later that day, the High Court varied the order, allowing Goodwin's name to be published, but continued it in relation to the identity of the lady involved.[7] In his judgment, Mr Justice Tugendhat noted that the order had not been a superinjunction as it had been published in anonymised form on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website. He also stated that the injunction had not prevented Goodwin being identified as a banker, but instead prevented the person applying for the injunction from being identified as a banker, and that this was done because "if the applicant were identified as a banker that would be likely to lead to his being named, which would defeat the purpose of granting him anonymity". The judge criticised press reporting of the case as including "misleading and inaccurate statements".[8]
See also
[edit]- Fred Goodwin v News Group Newspapers and VBN [2011] EWHC 1437 (QB)
References
[edit]- ^ http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases.aspx?menu=main&pageid=42&caseid=370
- ^ Hansard, HC 6ser vol 524 col 1069.
- ^ Hirsch, Afua (10 March 2011). "Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker". The Guardian. London.
- ^ Taylor, Jerome (10 March 2011). "MP lifts veil on Fred Goodwin super-injunction". The Independent. London.
- ^ a b Swinford, Steven (10 March 2011). "Sir Fred Goodwin, former RBS chief, obtains super-injunction". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 3 May 2011.
- ^ Hansard, HL 5ser vol 727 col 1490.
- ^ "High Court lifts Sir Fred Goodwin anonymity injunctio". BBC. 19 May 2011. Retrieved 19 May 2011.
- ^ "Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd". British and Irish Legal Information Institute. 19 May 2011.