Celebrity injunction: Australian website names couple protected by privacy order
Judges in London are deciding whether the decision to lift injunction can go before the Supreme Court
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.An Australian website has named the couple appealing the decision to lift a privacy injunction which had banned a tabloid from publishing their names.
On Monday, Court of Appeal judges ruled in favour of the Sun on Sunday after it challenged the injunction imposed in January. The tabloid had argued the order preventing it from reporting on a celebrity's “extra-marital activities” should be overturned because the man and his spouse have already been named by publications in the US and Scotland and a political blogger.
Judges are now considering whether the man, named as PJS in court documents, can take the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court. They are expected to reach a decision by the end of today.
In January, Court of Appeal judges said identifying PJS and publishing the story would be “devastating” for him and would “generate a media storm” that would make their young children the subject of increased press attention.
But after ruling in the Sun on Sunday’s favour, Lord Justice Jackson said “knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost,” meaning the harm the injunction was designed to counter had already likely taken place.
PJS can still not be named until his appeal has been heard.