« Super-Injunction denied | Main | What can Crown lawyers say to the media? »
Another interesting thing about the Terry case
By Steven | February 9, 2010
Look at the standard the judge applies to the injunction: the rule in Bonnard v Perryman. This is a famous case that sets the bar very high in defamation cases. Bonnard holds that no pre-trial injunction will be granted in a defamation case unless it’s entirely clear that no defence might apply. In practice, this means that defendants (usually media) need only say they’ll argue a defence (providing that argument isn’t off the planet) to defeat any chance of an interim injunction for defamation.
If you’re a plaintiff, that rather puts a premium on finding another cause of action on which to base your injunction. Privacy, perhaps? Some judges have said that they won’t countenance an attempt to do an end-run around the Bonnard rule by casting what is really a defamation case as something else. Here, Justice Tudendhat goes a step further. He’s applying the Bonnard rule in what really does seem to be a genuine privacy case – John Terry didn’t deny the affair – because “the nub of this application is a desire to protect what is in substance reputation”.
As I’ve noted before, many – perhaps most – privacy cases will concern the plaintiff’s reputation. Most of these are not defamation cases in drag. The ECHR has recognised that protection of privacy involves protection of reputation. That seems to mean that most privacy cases will be subject to a very high injunction threshold, at least where the information relates to conduct that is “voluntary, discreditable and personal (eg sexual or financial)”, as the judge puts it. He puts involuntary private matters (the example he gives is “disease”; it’s possible that sexual orientation may fit in here too), but the category doesn’t seem to be a big one. Private non-reputational material (such as the wedding photos in Douglas or private photos of children) don’t raise reputation issues either, but nor is that a very big category.
Adding to the general confusion is a recent speech by Justice Eady, who suggested that the rule in Bonnard may need to be revisited, since defamation concerns reputation, and reputation is protected under the right to private and family life (as the ECHR has found). This would mean the high threshold collapses into the usual balancing of the relative importance of the rights in play, via an “intense focus on the facts”.
Under the Hosking case in NZ, the injunction threshold in privacy cases is very high, though this is obiter and the Chief Justice in Rogers questioned whether it should be lower. It’s not clear how NZ courts will treat the developments in Britain, where the underlying constitutional framework is different, but where there is a much greater supply of case law!
Topics: Defamation, Injunctions, Privacy tort | 49 Comments »
49 Responses to “Another interesting thing about the Terry case”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 1st, 2020 at 8:19 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
June 27th, 2020 at 7:17 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
July 24th, 2020 at 11:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
August 21st, 2020 at 10:17 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 1:00 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 2:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 4:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
August 29th, 2020 at 10:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
September 9th, 2020 at 1:17 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
September 9th, 2020 at 8:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 89472 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
September 23rd, 2020 at 9:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
October 15th, 2020 at 1:30 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
November 12th, 2020 at 2:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 84235 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
December 9th, 2020 at 11:32 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
December 9th, 2020 at 5:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
December 13th, 2020 at 4:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
December 18th, 2020 at 12:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
December 19th, 2020 at 4:36 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
December 20th, 2020 at 8:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
January 2nd, 2021 at 12:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
January 7th, 2021 at 2:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 43541 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
January 18th, 2021 at 2:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
February 4th, 2021 at 7:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 19138 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
March 14th, 2021 at 4:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
March 25th, 2021 at 1:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
April 20th, 2021 at 1:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 68183 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
April 30th, 2021 at 3:01 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
May 3rd, 2021 at 12:58 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 5194 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
May 29th, 2021 at 5:28 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 1:02 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 9:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
October 4th, 2021 at 8:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
October 7th, 2021 at 1:18 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
October 18th, 2021 at 4:50 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
October 21st, 2021 at 9:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 37444 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
November 3rd, 2021 at 2:05 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
November 13th, 2021 at 3:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 76212 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
December 1st, 2021 at 5:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
December 22nd, 2021 at 6:10 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
January 8th, 2022 at 2:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
January 20th, 2022 at 1:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
February 9th, 2022 at 5:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 71872 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
February 24th, 2022 at 1:15 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
March 31st, 2022 at 7:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
April 15th, 2022 at 4:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
April 21st, 2022 at 3:24 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
April 25th, 2022 at 9:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
May 3rd, 2022 at 10:10 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]
June 10th, 2022 at 4:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=340 […]