Terminology and application
The Neuberger Committee notes that the terminology surrounding privacy injunctions has been used imprecisely and the term "super-injunction" has been used to refer to: *Injunctions that provide anonymity for one or both parties. *Injunctions that prohibit reporting of the substantive facts and proceedings of a case. *Injunctions that provide anonymity for one or both parties, prohibit reporting of the substantive facts and proceedings of a case and prohibit access to court files. The committee adopt the definition that a super-injunction is An anonymised injunction is a type of injunction which restrains a person from publishing information concerning an applicant that is said to be confidential or private. An anonymised injunction differs from a super-injunction as an anonymised injunction does not restrain the publicising or informing of others of the existence of the order and the proceedings. The term "hyper-injunction" has been used to describe a type of super-injunction that also forbids a person from discussing the issue in question with journalists, lawyers or Members of Parliament. Such injunctions have been criticised as anti-democratic and the former Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming usedCases
Due to their very nature it is not possible to say exactly how many super-injunctions exist or have been issued. The Neuberger Committee that examined super-injunctions stated: "at present, there are records of only a limited number of cases; specific records are not at present kept in respect of such matters". The Neuberger Committee report does not specify how many have been granted in the past but does state that only two super-injunctions had been granted since the John Terry case: '' Ntuli v Donald'' 010EWCA Civ 1276) and '' DFT v TFD'' 010EWHC 2335 (QB). ''The Daily Telegraph'' have reported that 12 super-injunctions exist. Below are known super-injunctions that have become public: Several cases have been inaccurately described as super-injunctions in the media. These include:Disclosure
There are several ways in which the public can learn of a super-injunction:Criticism
Super-injunctions have been criticised on various grounds including that they stifle free speech; are ineffective; and risk drawing further attention to an issue. The ''Daily Mirror'' newspaper has criticised super-injunctions as existing only for an elite highlighting a poll that 79% of people believe super-injunctions exist for the rich and powerful alone. Super-injunctions have also been criticised on feminist grounds with Maeve Mckeown arguing that "superinjunction allows rich men to legally protect their reputations at the expense of less-rich women".See also
* 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy * DSMA-Notice * Privacy in English lawReferences
External links