Politicians, celebrities and executives who won court orders blocking British newspapers from publishing stories about their private lives are finding social media is overcoming their so-called super-injunctions.
A Twitter Inc. user on May 8 posted a series of messages claiming a number of
“This is one of those nightmare judicial situations,” James Quartermaine, a media lawyer at Charles Russell in
Privacy rulings have been on the rise since Formula One President Max Mosley won a ruling in 2008 that his privacy rights were violated by a story in News Corp.’s News of the World about a Nazi-themed sex party. The flurry of rulings brought opposition from Prime Minister David Cameron, who said Parliament, and not the courts, should set
Rod Dadak, a defamation lawyer at Lewis Silkin in
“He’s in contempt, so he can be sent to prison,” Dadak said, referring to the Twitter user. “He’s contravened an order by the court not to name someone.”
Bernadette Caffarey, spokeswoman for Attorney General Dominic Grieve said that, as privacy injunctions are part of civil law, it is up to the people who have been named to sue.
“It is for the party who obtained an injunction to apply to the court if it wishes to do so to bring proceedings for contempt,” the communications office for the judiciary said in an e-mailed statement. “The court will not take action of its own initiative.”