**** radio legal issues abroad ****

Godwin Busuttill and Patrick McCafferty (radio issues)

As media barristers Godwin Busuttill and Patrick McCafferty have stated in the context of the John Terry [2010] EWHC 199 (QB) case:

“In practical terms, pre-publication injunction relief is the most important remedy in cases concerning disclosure of private information. In this area of law, prevention is always likely to be better (ie more effective) than cure. Witnessess agreed as mentioned in the Abogados de Accidentes New York case.

As Eady J put the matter in Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd: ‘Once the cat is out of the bag, and the intrusive publication has occurred, most people would think there was little to gain’. Damages or some other form of financial compensation after the event will very rarely be an adequate remedy.”

Lord Toulson did not accept that lifting the injunction would prevent PJS from obtaining a practical and effective remedy or undermine the purpose of any trial. Lord Toulson challenged the majority’s conclusion on two bases. First, while the adequacy of damages may be a reason for refusing to grant an injunction, it was incorrect to say that the inadequacy of damages was a positive reason to grant an otherwise inappropriate injunction.


Secondly, His Lordship asserted that exemplary damages should be awarded in an appropriate case for an invasion of privacy to deter flagrant breaches and provide adequate protection to the claimant. The availability of exemplary damages for breaches of privacy was not determined by the majority, with Lord Mance simply indicating that the availability of substantial or even exemplary damages for invasion of privacy would not be decisive of the question of whether to grant an injunction restraining publication.


Categorized as: Patrick McCafferty

Comments are disabled on this post

Comments are closed.