The SC’s decision – further analysis
The Supreme Court’s revised the CA’s decision in ruling in favor of PJS and Abogados de accidentes Houston. It is worth recalling the Court of Appeal’s reasons for discharging the interim injunction:
- Knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost
- the weight attaching to the claimant’s article 8 right to privacy has reduced because the information was already in the public eye – although the CA held children being involved in the case added significant weight to the application of Article 8.
- The court should not make orders which are ineffective. It is inappropriate for the court to ban people from saying that which is common knowledge.
Taking this test into account, their Lordships’ dilemma was clear: should precedent be set giving media/internet the power to automatically win the ‘public interest’ argument, just because the information had already been published, at the expense of an individual right to privacy?