Not all newspapers must be informed of privacy injunctions, says High Court

The High Court ruled in the case of an un-named person whose laptop was stolen in a burglary and who sought the Court's protection for the private information and photographs that were on the computer.

The Court said that it was clear that whoever had the computer had no right to view, store or disseminate the information and photographs on the machine, and that the burglary victim's rights to privacy outweighed any rights to freedom of expression enjoyed by the burglar or anyone else in possession of the computer.

The Court also said that if the person who has the computer tries to interest newspapers in the publication of it, lawyers for the burglary victim are under no obligation to tell every media organisation of the Court's order that the information should not be published. The lawyers only had to tell any organisation with an interest in the story, the Court said.

"The question, therefore, has to be asked whether it is proportionate to require an applicant for injunctive relief to undertake, always and as a matter of course, the expense, delay and inconvenience of serving all the media organisations who may, theoretically, be affected by the grant of an injunction," said Mr Justice Eady in the ruling. "A sensible balance of competing rights would generally be achieved by requiring them only to serve those whom they have reason to believe will have an interest in the story."

"They should not be required to speculate or guess, but if there are solid grounds in the light of the available evidence to think that a particular media group has shown an interest in the material, it is right that they should be notified," he said.

The practice of informing media groups became an issue in the recent High Court case which decided that married footballer John Terry did not have the right to stop newspapers printing details of his affair with a friend and team-mate's ex-girlfriend.

Lawyers for Terry gave no news organisation any notice that it was seeking an injunction and so none was able to attend the Court hearing or make any arguments on the issue.

Mr Justice Tugendhat in that case admonished Terry's legal team and said that it was clear that the publishers of the News Of The World had an interest in the case and should have been notified.

"The first reason advanced for not notifying anyone of the application is that [Terry] 'does not know of any media organisation which has a specific interest in the story'," said Mr Justice Tugendhat's ruling. "I cannot accept that explanation. The evidence shows that [News Of The World publisher News Group Newspapers] NGN were intending to publish a story about [Terry] on the Sunday. It is said that [Terry] did not know what the story would be about."

"[Terry's lawyer] submits that in these circumstances [Terry] had no reason to believe that NGN had an existing specific interest in the outcome of the application. In my judgment the interest that NGN did show in publishing a story meant that they should have been given notice," he said. "

He said that the impact of that failure to give notice was that arguments that should have been heard in court were not.

"Notice has not been given to any newspaper when it should have been, and, as a result, I have not had the benefit of arguments in opposition to the application, which might have assisted me to be satisfied of the matters of which I am not satisfied," he said.

The case in which Mr Justice Eady has just ruled will clarify the circumstances in which news organisations should be informed and when an injunction can be put in place without informing newspapers or broadcasters.

Mr Justice Eady said that the media had other protections than being directly informed. He said that injunctions can be modified or discharged on very short notice by a Court after an application by a media organisation.

"Against that background, it seems to me that the need for prior notification should be addressed according to the facts of each case," he said. "I do not think it right that an applicant's lawyers should have to give prior notification to each and every media group – simply on the basis that they might be interested in the story, or in the private information sought to be protected, if they hear about it. Accordingly, the law should only impose an obligation to notify those who are already believed to have shown some interest in publishing."