Footballer wins gagging order extension
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 England footballer today won a continuation of a High Court gagging order preventing the "misuse" of private information about him.
The ruling was made by Mr Justice Kenneth Parker, sitting in London.
An injunction was originally granted by a different judge to the unnamed star on August 19, blocking publication of allegations about his private life.
The move came shortly after another England international star was granted a similar court order. Neither of the footballers can be named under the terms of the orders.
Today's decision means that the injunction granted on August 19 continues until trial of the action or further order.
The case - listed in the anonymised form of ZXC v BNM - was heard in private, but lawyers confirmed afterwards that the order had been continued by the judge.
Before the proceedings went into private session, Hugh Tomlinson QC, for the footballer, told the judge that an injunction was granted on August 19 "to prevent the misuse of private information".
He stressed that it was not a super-injunction.
Mr Tomlinson added: "It is an injunction which does not seek to conceal its own identity, but seeks to conceal the identity of the claimant and the defendant because it is an injunction which relates to private information."
The QC then applied for the hearing to be held in private.
Mr Tomlinson told the judge that publicity would "defeat the object of the hearing" as the case involved confidential information - confidentiality would be "damaged" if the proceedings were held in open court.
Granting that application, the judge said he had considered the matter and had decided it was "an appropriate case to be heard in private".
Concern has been mounting about the use of injunctions to stop reporting of potentially embarrassing revelations.
There was outrage last year after an injunction granted to the Swiss multinational Trafigura appeared to restrict what MPs could say in Parliament.
Chelsea football captain John Terry was granted an injunction - later overturned - preventing reporting of information about his alleged affair with Vanessa Perroncel, the former partner of his England team-mate Wayne Bridge.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments